linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current 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: <2024090439-hexagon-imply-db4e@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:16:10 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current
 tree

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 03:05:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   87eb3cb4ec61 ("usb: typec: ucsi: Fix cable registration")
> 
> from the usb.current tree and commit:
> 
>   73910c511b1a ("usb: typec: ucsi: Only assign the identity structure if the PPM supports it")
> 
> from the usb 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/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> index 17155ed17fdf,f0b5867048e2..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> @@@ -993,11 -929,12 +939,12 @@@ static int ucsi_register_cable(struct u
>   		break;
>   	}
>   
> - 	desc.identity = &con->cable_identity;
> + 	if (con->ucsi->cap.features & UCSI_CAP_GET_PD_MESSAGE)
> + 		desc.identity = &con->cable_identity;
>  -	desc.active = !!(UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_ACTIVE_CABLE &
>  -			 con->cable_prop.flags);
>  -	desc.pd_revision = UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD(
>  -	    con->cable_prop.flags);
>  +	desc.active = !!(UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_ACTIVE_CABLE & cable_prop.flags);
>  +
>  +	if (con->ucsi->version >= UCSI_VERSION_2_1)
>  +		desc.pd_revision = UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD(cable_prop.flags);
>   
>   	cable = typec_register_cable(con->port, &desc);
>   	if (IS_ERR(cable)) {
> @@@ -1094,8 -1009,10 +1041,9 @@@ static int ucsi_register_partner(struc
>   	if (pwr_opmode == UCSI_CONSTAT_PWR_OPMODE_PD)
>   		ucsi_register_device_pdos(con);
>   
> - 	desc.identity = &con->partner_identity;
> + 	if (con->ucsi->cap.features & UCSI_CAP_GET_PD_MESSAGE)
> + 		desc.identity = &con->partner_identity;
>   	desc.usb_pd = pwr_opmode == UCSI_CONSTAT_PWR_OPMODE_PD;
>  -	desc.pd_revision = UCSI_CONCAP_FLAG_PARTNER_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD(con->cap.flags);
>   
>   	partner = typec_register_partner(con->port, &desc);
>   	if (IS_ERR(partner)) {


Heikki, does this resolution look correct?  I knew there would be a
conflict, just want to make sure we get it right.

thanks

greg k-h