linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the devicetree 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53a802bb-b462-6256-9d23-3181798cdefe@st.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:56:56 +0000
From:   Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        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>,
        Fabrice GASNIER <fabrice.gasnier@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the devicetree tree


On 11/15/19 10:41 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> 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?
Describing sleep state in json-schema is not need since it is included

by the "top" schema.

Benjamin

>
> Thierry