linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next tree with the qcom 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: <d194fa50-8bff-544e-eb88-128810f525f9@free.fr>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:35:44 +0200
From:   Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next tree with the qcom tree

On 18/04/2019 07:29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the phy-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qmp-phy.txt
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   369b89366a3d ("dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Tweak qcom,msm8998-qmp-ufs-phy")
> 
> from the qcom tree and commit:
> 
>   2815588ea64b ("dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Add qcom,msm8998-qmp-pcie-phy")
> 
> from the phy-next 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.

Hello Stephen,

The current state of Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qmp-phy.txt
is indeed:

		For "qcom,msm8998-qmp-usb3-phy" must contain
			"phy", "common".
		For "qcom,msm8998-qmp-ufs-phy": must contain:
			"ufsphy".
		For "qcom,msm8998-qmp-pcie-phy" must contain:
			"phy", "common".
		For "qcom,sdm845-qmp-usb3-phy" must contain:
			"phy", "common".


It is not clear to me what I could/should have done differently to avoid
the conflict?

Regards.