[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230111090732.4rdkp74cuwytolay@SoMainline.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 10:07:32 +0100
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: add board-id/msm-id for MSM8956,
SDM636 and SM4250
On 2023-01-10 22:30:00, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
> > >> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250. Also mention more OnePlus
> > >> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
> > >
> > >> ---
> > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
> > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
> > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
> > >> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
> > >> - qcom,apq8026
> > >> - qcom,apq8094
> > >> - qcom,apq8096
> > >> + - qcom,msm8956
> > >
> > > I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
> > > lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
> > > Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
> > >
> > > Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
> > > added?
> >
> > Bjorn,
> > You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
> > is changed and its pieces are gone.
> >
>
> I don't have any script that automagically solves merge conflicts, so if
> you prefer to avoid the occasional mistake I can start reject your
> patches as soon as they don't apply 100% cleanly.
Is this manual conflict resolution by you? Git would/should only make
it disappear if it thinks that (part of) the patch has already been
applied, though I don't think those lines were added with the exact same
indentation elsewhere in the file.
There's also a mode that makes git reject the patch if the context (and
line numbers?) doesn't match up exactly, but that may cause more harm
than good.
- Marijn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists