2021-12-06 03:49:15

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:

drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c

between commit:

9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")

from the char-misc.current tree and commits:

5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
(and probably more)

from the char-misc 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


Attachments:
(No filename) (488.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2021-12-06 13:44:19

by Andy Shevchenko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:49:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")
>
> from the char-misc.current tree and commits:
>
> 5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
> a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
> 58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
> 51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
> (and probably more)
>
> from the char-misc 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.

The result from char-misc.current should be used as is and I guess it's
what you have done, thanks!

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



2021-12-06 16:17:52

by Ralph Siemsen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:49:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")

This was my original patch from Nov 8th.

>> 5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
>> a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
>> 58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
>> 51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
>> (and probably more)

These are newer versions and some cleanups from Andy. I was not aware of
this work going on. I'm surprised at25 is getting so much attention ;-)

>> 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.
>
>The result from char-misc.current should be used as is and I guess it's
>what you have done, thanks!

Agreed - Andy's version is cleaner, and includes my fixes. I've run some
quick tests locally and all seems to be working as expected.

Regards,
Ralph

2021-12-06 16:45:10

by Andy Shevchenko

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:17:34AM -0500, Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:49:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")
>
> This was my original patch from Nov 8th.
>
> > > 5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
> > > a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
> > > 58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
> > > 51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
> > > (and probably more)
>
> These are newer versions and some cleanups from Andy. I was not aware of
> this work going on. I'm surprised at25 is getting so much attention ;-)

Me neither. :-)

> > > 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.
> >
> > The result from char-misc.current should be used as is and I guess it's
> > what you have done, thanks!
>
> Agreed - Andy's version is cleaner, and includes my fixes. I've run some
> quick tests locally and all seems to be working as expected.

Thanks, Ralph!

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



2021-12-13 09:18:17

by Greg KH

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 06:44:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:17:34AM -0500, Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:49:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > > drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> > > >
> > > > between commit:
> > > >
> > > > 9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")
> >
> > This was my original patch from Nov 8th.
> >
> > > > 5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
> > > > a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
> > > > 58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
> > > > 51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
> > > > (and probably more)
> >
> > These are newer versions and some cleanups from Andy. I was not aware of
> > this work going on. I'm surprised at25 is getting so much attention ;-)
>
> Me neither. :-)
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > The result from char-misc.current should be used as is and I guess it's
> > > what you have done, thanks!
> >
> > Agreed - Andy's version is cleaner, and includes my fixes. I've run some
> > quick tests locally and all seems to be working as expected.
>
> Thanks, Ralph!

This should now be resolved in my tree, thanks.

greg k-h

2022-01-07 23:18:58

by Kees Cook

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:18:07AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 06:44:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:17:34AM -0500, Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:49:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
> > > > >
> > > > > between commit:
> > > > >
> > > > > 9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")
> > >
> > > This was my original patch from Nov 8th.
> > >
> > > > > 5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
> > > > > a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
> > > > > 58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
> > > > > 51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
> > > > > (and probably more)
> > >
> > > These are newer versions and some cleanups from Andy. I was not aware of
> > > this work going on. I'm surprised at25 is getting so much attention ;-)
> >
> > Me neither. :-)
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > The result from char-misc.current should be used as is and I guess it's
> > > > what you have done, thanks!
> > >
> > > Agreed - Andy's version is cleaner, and includes my fixes. I've run some
> > > quick tests locally and all seems to be working as expected.
> >
> > Thanks, Ralph!
>
> This should now be resolved in my tree, thanks.

I think something has gone very wrong here. The allocation for "at25" is
now missing in at25_probe():

- at25 = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(struct at25_data), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!at25)
- return -ENOMEM;
-

This leads to a fair bit of confusion from static analysis which sees
the "at25" as basically empty. :P

--
Kees Cook