linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c306fbd9-21d9-5345-e820-52bc23d1b7c7@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 08:47:00 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>,
        Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc
 tree

On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> Hi Stephen
> 
> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>>    5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c")
>>
>> from the irqchip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion 
> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my 
> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule 
> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine 
> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I 
> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ?
Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define
what you want to do?

In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...