Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the sound-asoc tree got a conflict in:
sound/soc/sof/intel/hda.c
between commit:
86f74ba3fef5 ("ASoC: SOF: hda: reset DAI widget before reconfiguring it")
from the sound-current tree and commit:
a0f84dfb3f6d ("ASoC: SOF: IPC: dai: Expand DAI_CONFIG IPC flags")
from the sound-asoc tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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 Mon, 29 Nov 2021 01:35:54 +0100,
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sound-asoc tree got a conflict in:
>
> sound/soc/sof/intel/hda.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 86f74ba3fef5 ("ASoC: SOF: hda: reset DAI widget before reconfiguring it")
>
> from the sound-current tree and commit:
>
> a0f84dfb3f6d ("ASoC: SOF: IPC: dai: Expand DAI_CONFIG IPC flags")
>
> from the sound-asoc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.
Both are from ASoC tree, while the former landed in my sound git tree
for-linus branch recently.
Mark, could you resolve in the latter branch?
thanks,
Takashi
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:23:07AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark, could you resolve in the latter branch?
I'll just leave them for now, Linus got angry about merging up fixes
just to resolve conflicts so if it's not an actual dependency...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:29:36 +0100,
Kai Vehmanen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:23:07AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > > Mark, could you resolve in the latter branch?
> >
> > I'll just leave them for now, Linus got angry about merging up fixes
> > just to resolve conflicts so if it's not an actual dependency...
>
> the asoc for-5.17 branch does have all the needed changes and the
> linux-next merged version seems ok. We've already sent many further
> changes that touch this area of code to asoc for-5.17. Let me know if some
> actions are needed to help.
The question is rather whether this discrepancy would cause a problem
for further developments. If back-merging 5.16 stuff makes things
easier, it should be done so. OTOH, if it's just for resolving the
conflict in the final tree, we can leave it.
thanks,
Takashi
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:23:07AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > Mark, could you resolve in the latter branch?
>
> I'll just leave them for now, Linus got angry about merging up fixes
> just to resolve conflicts so if it's not an actual dependency...
the asoc for-5.17 branch does have all the needed changes and the
linux-next merged version seems ok. We've already sent many further
changes that touch this area of code to asoc for-5.17. Let me know if some
actions are needed to help.
Br, Kai
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:29:36 +0100, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> > the asoc for-5.17 branch does have all the needed changes and the
> > linux-next merged version seems ok. We've already sent many further
> > changes that touch this area of code to asoc for-5.17. Let me know if some
>
> The question is rather whether this discrepancy would cause a problem
> for further developments. If back-merging 5.16 stuff makes things
> easier, it should be done so. OTOH, if it's just for resolving the
> conflict in the final tree, we can leave it.
I believe it's the latter case, it would be just for resolving conflict
in the final tree. The patches we have queued up for 5.17 but not yet
sent, all apply cleanly on top of asoc for-5.17, so back-merge is not
needed for this.
Br, Kai