lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the devicetree tree
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:44 AM Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:26:41AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:14:36AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:49 AM Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:22:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml
> >> > > >
> >> > > > between commit:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 3828026c9ec8 ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > from the devicetree tree and commits:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > cd4b54e2ae1f ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > from the usb tree.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I fixed it up (I guessed, taking most changes from the former) 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.
> >> >
> >> > Ugg, I fixed up a warning on my side...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Sounds good,t hanks.
> >> >
> >> > Greg, can you revert your copy and we can get rid of the conflict.
>
> Did things change recently? I always got the message from DT folks that
> DT changes should go via the driver tree. Has that changed? I can stop
> taking DT patches, no problem.

Not really. Mainly, I've been taking some schema conversions as they
tend to be standalone patches and to make sure they validate (this one
had a warning which I fixed up and that caused the conflict). Most
bindings don't see multiple updates in a cycle, but this one has
obviously become a mess.

If it has my Reviewed/Acked-by, then I'm not taking it. If I applied,
then I've replied saying I did.

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 16:05    [W:0.080 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site