linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes 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: <CACMJSev3=yB8nziqxFgdZUSqdpv+ZjLQepZTopJOcfJ0NoGR8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:41:01 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Haibo Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the
 gpio-brgl-fixes tree

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 07:06, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   fc363413ef8e ("gpio: vf610: set value before the direction to avoid a glitch")
>
> from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   b57587f11f81 ("gpio: vf610: simplify code by dropping data check")
>
> from the gpio-brgl tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> index 656d6b1dddb5,a89ae84a1fa0..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> @@@ -126,9 -140,7 +140,9 @@@ static int vf610_gpio_direction_output(
>         unsigned long mask = BIT(gpio);
>         u32 val;
>
>  +      vf610_gpio_set(chip, gpio, value);
>  +
> -       if (port->sdata && port->sdata->have_paddr) {
> +       if (port->sdata->have_paddr) {
>                 val = vf610_gpio_readl(port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);
>                 val |= mask;
>                 vf610_gpio_writel(val, port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);

Thanks Stephen, this is correct.

My for-next tree is currently rebased on top of v6.6-rc1 while the
fixes tree tracks Linus' master.

Once the fixes are upstream, I may just rebase my for-next tree.

Bart