Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got conflicts in:
drivers/phy/tegra/Kconfig
drivers/phy/tegra/xusb.c
between commits:
5a00c7c7604f ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-role-switch support")
23babe30fb45 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-phy support")
d74ce0954cb2 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add support to get companion USB 3 port")
58e7bd08b569 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add Tegra194 support")
from the arm-soc tree and commit:
f67213cee2b3 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-role-switch support")
e8f7d2f409a1 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-phy support")
5a40fc4b934c ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add support to get companion USB 3 port")
1ef535c6ba8e ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add Tegra194 support")
from the tegra tree.
These are slightly different patches (the latter has been rebased).
Also there are further commits affecting these files in the tegra tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the version from the tegra tree) 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
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:27:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got conflicts in:
>
> drivers/phy/tegra/Kconfig
> drivers/phy/tegra/xusb.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 5a00c7c7604f ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-role-switch support")
> 23babe30fb45 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-phy support")
> d74ce0954cb2 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add support to get companion USB 3 port")
> 58e7bd08b569 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add Tegra194 support")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
> f67213cee2b3 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-role-switch support")
> e8f7d2f409a1 ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add usb-phy support")
> 5a40fc4b934c ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add support to get companion USB 3 port")
> 1ef535c6ba8e ("phy: tegra: xusb: Add Tegra194 support")
>
> from the tegra tree.
>
> These are slightly different patches (the latter has been rebased).
> Also there are further commits affecting these files in the tegra tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the version from the tegra tree) 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.
Olof, Arnd,
There was a bit of back and forth on this because there happened to be a
conflict with the USB tree. I tried to clarify this as replies to the PR
request:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1254523/
But I suspect you may have missed those replies. The bottom line is,
there is a v2 of the pull request that has the patches that are now in
the Tegra tree. That's already part of a PR that went in through the USB
tree as a dependency to resolve the conflict.
So as a result there should be no need for ARM SoC to carry that PR. But
if you still want to merge it, please pull v2, which is here:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git tags/tegra-for-5.7-phy-v2
Sorry for the confusion,
Thierry
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:18 PM Thierry Reding <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:27:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > I fixed it up (I just used the version from the tegra tree) 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.
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> There was a bit of back and forth on this because there happened to be a
> conflict with the USB tree. I tried to clarify this as replies to the PR
> request:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1254523/
>
> But I suspect you may have missed those replies. The bottom line is,
> there is a v2 of the pull request that has the patches that are now in
> the Tegra tree. That's already part of a PR that went in through the USB
> tree as a dependency to resolve the conflict.
>
> So as a result there should be no need for ARM SoC to carry that PR. But
> if you still want to merge it, please pull v2, which is here:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git tags/tegra-for-5.7-phy-v2
>
It was almost at the top of the branch, so I ended up just taking it out now, it
should be gone from the soc tree by tomorrow.
I think I managed to skip it as you asked on my first pass, but then failed to
reread the message when I went through the remaining entries in patchwork.
Clearly my tooling still needs a bit of improvement.
Arnd