linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a8a4b2ef-4f7c-d44e-6f39-516944378ac6@microchip.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:29:09 +0200
From:   Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm-soc tree

On 12/10/2021 at 09:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:35 AM Nicolas Ferre
> <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 at 02:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> After merging the arm-soc tree, today's linux-next build (arm
>>> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>>>
>>> Error: arch/arm/boot/dts/sama7g5.dtsi:167.3-7 syntax error
>>> FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree
>>>
>>> Caused by commit
>>>
>>>     9be4be3ed1ec ("Merge branch 'arm/dt' into for-next")
> 
> Thank you for the report!
> 
> I had verified the arm/dt branch by itself, but didn't recheck it after I
> merged it into the for-next branch. At least that one is easy to fix
> up as I don't send the combined branch to Linus, and the arm/dt
> branch does not have the problem.
> 
>> I had following patch to have the nodes in alphabetical order:
>>
> ...
>>
>> Sorry for not having mentioned this conflict in the pull-request.
> 
> No worries,
> 
> I had assumed you had them sorted by unit-address, so I had them
>   in the wrong order as well. Fixing up both issues in for-next
> now by redoing the merge.

OMG, you're right, it's by unit-address: I'm removing my at91-next for 
now to not cause more confusion and merge conflicts.

Not a big deal if you already re-did the merge.

Best regards,
   Nicolas


-- 
Nicolas Ferre