[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191115094141.GA825257@ulmo>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 10:41:41 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>,
Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the devicetree tree
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 03:44:56PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in:
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-stm32.txt
>
> between commit:
>
> 56fb34d86e87 ("dt-bindings: mfd: Convert stm32 timers bindings to json-schema")
>
> from the devicetree tree and commit:
>
> 4205e356285e ("dt-bindings: pwm-stm32: Document pinctrl sleep state")
>
> from the pwm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just deleted the file - more fixup is probably required)
> 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.
It should be trivial to rewrite the sleep state patch on top of the
json-schema conversion and then take that version into the devicetree
tree.
Fabrice, can you resend that patch based on the devicetree tree?
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists