linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+cKXO71U_HVG0nZzbQ_B4GwrmcyzkECSTJUAuBzQgcZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 08:04:48 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sandeep Maheswaram <sanm@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the devicetree tree

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:44 AM Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:26:41AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:14:36AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:49 AM Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:22:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml
> >> > > >
> >> > > > between commit:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   3828026c9ec8 ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > from the devicetree tree and commits:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   cd4b54e2ae1f ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > from the usb tree.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I fixed it up (I guessed, taking most changes from the former) 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.
> >> >
> >> > Ugg, I fixed up a warning on my side...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Sounds good,t hanks.
> >> >
> >> > Greg, can you revert your copy and we can get rid of the conflict.
>
> Did things change recently? I always got the message from DT folks that
> DT changes should go via the driver tree. Has that changed? I can stop
> taking DT patches, no problem.

Not really. Mainly, I've been taking some schema conversions as they
tend to be standalone patches and to make sure they validate (this one
had a warning which I fixed up and that caused the conflict). Most
bindings don't see multiple updates in a cycle, but this one has
obviously become a mess.

If it has my Reviewed/Acked-by, then I'm not taking it. If I applied,
then I've replied saying I did.

Rob