Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree | From | Alexandre Torgue <> | Date | Tue, 29 May 2018 10:16:24 +0200 |
| |
Hi Marc
On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >> Hi Stephen >> >> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>> 3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c") >>> >>> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >>> >>> 5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c") >>> >>> from the irqchip 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. >>> >> >> Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion >> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my >> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule >> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine >> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I >> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ? > Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define > what you want to do?
Sorry I don't understand your reply. I just say that for series containing DT patches + drivers patches, to my point of view it is more safe that driver patches are taken by sub-system maintainer (you in this case) and that I take DT patches in my tree.
> > In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether. > Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.
> Thanks, > > M. >
| |