Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
between commit:
7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
from the arm-soc tree and commit:
45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
from the pm tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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 Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>
> from the pm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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.
Dave, Santosh,
any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
Arnd
On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>
>> from the pm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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.
>
> Dave, Santosh,
>
> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
>
Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or
so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well.
I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have
only arm-soc copy.
Regards,
Santosh
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>>
>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>
>>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>>
>>> from the pm tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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.
>>
>>
>> Dave, Santosh,
>>
>> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
>> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
>>
> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or
> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well.
>
> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have
> only arm-soc copy.
I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of
them is your keystone tree:
arm-soc/next/drivers:
ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells
a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
pm/pm-domains:
9da73c55f95f ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
112572283742 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
45da8edd1741 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
b1013fa55589 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells
7030fc004df9 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
b539cc82d493 PM / Domains: Ignore domain-idle-states that are not compatible
075c37d59ecd PM / Domains: Don't warn about IRQ safe device for an
always on PM domain
1c14967c6ea0 PM / Domains: Respect errors from genpd's ->power_off() callback
ffaa42e8a40b PM / Domains: Enable users of genpd to specify always on PM domains
41e2c8e0060d PM / Domains: Clean up code validating genpd's status
8ce95844c853 PM / Domain: remove conditional from error case
For all I can tell (and matching what Stephen found), the version in
the 'pm' tree
is the one you intended to send, while the version we merged into arm-soc
has not only a different git commit ID but also some odd comments that
are not present in the PM version:
+/*
+ * TI SCI Generic Power Domain Driver
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2015-2017 Texas Instruments Incorporated -
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.com_&d=DwIBAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY&m=R6qGiR9DbG1C3EF_0mL-m-qkmSO64GklbFWpUzqt8fY&s=YTWcQCWi5lnIf4XHDLq1XDd4JbZv9xpqOwdPD8xEdZE&e=
Arnd
On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, [email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>>>
>>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>>>
>>>> from the pm tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave, Santosh,
>>>
>>> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
>>> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
>>>
>> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or
>> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well.
>>
>> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have
>> only arm-soc copy.
>
> I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of
> them is your keystone tree:
>
In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree.
ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells
a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
> arm-soc/next/drivers:
> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells
> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
>
Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for.
> pm/pm-domains:
> 9da73c55f95f ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
> 112572283742 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
> 45da8edd1741 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
> b1013fa55589 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells
> 7030fc004df9 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
The above git object don't exist in my tree so am not sure about these
objects. I Just checked Rafael's pm-domains head and that also don't
have these objects.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=pm-domains
> b539cc82d493 PM / Domains: Ignore domain-idle-states that are not compatible
> 075c37d59ecd PM / Domains: Don't warn about IRQ safe device for an
> always on PM domain
> 1c14967c6ea0 PM / Domains: Respect errors from genpd's ->power_off() callback
> ffaa42e8a40b PM / Domains: Enable users of genpd to specify always on PM domains
> 41e2c8e0060d PM / Domains: Clean up code validating genpd's status
> 8ce95844c853 PM / Domain: remove conditional from error case
>
> For all I can tell (and matching what Stephen found), the version in
> the 'pm' tree
> is the one you intended to send, while the version we merged into arm-soc
> has not only a different git commit ID but also some odd comments that
> are not present in the PM version:
>
See above. The one in arm-soc tree is what I sent as pull request. Am
also confused for the git objects you pointed out in pm/pm-domains.
If they are not on the source pm-domains tree then how they landed
up in linux-next ?
Regards,
Santosh
On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 PM [email protected] wrote:
>
> On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, [email protected]
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
> >>>>
> >>>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
> >>>>
> >>>> between commit:
> >>>>
> >>>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
> >>>>
> >>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> >>>>
> >>>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
> >>>>
> >>>> from the pm tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dave, Santosh,
> >>>
> >>> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
> >>> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
> >>>
> >> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or
> >> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well.
> >>
> >> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have
> >> only arm-soc copy.
> >
> > I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of
> > them is your keystone tree:
> >
> In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree.
OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry.
I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, [email protected]
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>>>>>
>>>>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>>>>>
>>>>> between commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the pm tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave, Santosh,
>>>>
>>>> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
>>>> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
>>>>
>>> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or
>>> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well.
>>>
>>> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have
>>> only arm-soc copy.
>>
>>
>> I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of
>> them is your keystone tree:
>>
> In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree.
>
> ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
> 52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
> 7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
> 213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells
> a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
>
>> arm-soc/next/drivers:
>> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
>> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
>> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
>> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle
>> cells
>> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
>>
> Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for.
Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that
contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you
send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular http://www.ti.org
URL that is in linux-next?
Arnd
On 4/21/2017 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 PM [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, [email protected]
[...]
>>> I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of
>>> them is your keystone tree:
>>>
>> In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree.
>
> OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry.
>
NP.
> I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch.
>
Thanks for clarification.
Regards,
Santosh
+Dave,
On 4/21/2017 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, [email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
[...]
>>> arm-soc/next/drivers:
>>> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
>>> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
>>> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
>>> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle
>>> cells
>>> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
>>>
>> Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for.
>
> Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that
> contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you
> send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org&d=DwIBaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY&m=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ&s=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w&e=
> URL that is in linux-next?
>
Dave,
Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ?
Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines.
Regards,
Santosh
On 04/21/2017 04:54 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> +Dave,
>
> On 4/21/2017 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, [email protected]
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> arm-soc/next/drivers:
>>>> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g
>>>> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver
>>>> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains
>>>> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle
>>>> cells
>>>> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct
>>>>
>>> Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for.
>>
>> Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that
>> contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you
>> send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org&d=DwIBaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY&m=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ&s=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w&e=
>>
>> URL that is in linux-next?
>>
> Dave,
> Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ?
> Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines.
I didn't change any of the URLs in the patches, I am not sure what those URLs
are. In the patches I sent the URLs are fine, and I see them normal on patchwork
too: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9660785/
Is there something that automatically changes those? I don't want to send
another patch for it to just get mangled again.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Santosh
On 4/24/2017 11:02 AM, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> On 04/21/2017 04:54 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> +Dave,
>>
[...]
>>> Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that
>>> contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you
>>> send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org&d=DwIBaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY&m=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ&s=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w&e=
>>>
>>>
>>> URL that is in linux-next?
>>>
>> Dave,
>> Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ?
>> Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines.
>
> I didn't change any of the URLs in the patches, I am not sure what those
> URLs are. In the patches I sent the URLs are fine, and I see them normal
> on patchwork too:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.kernel.org_patch_9660785_&d=DwICaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY&m=eK4-xq3xbWwYHfuVa6ee48pvTCWUv5X5PHM285eHMLQ&s=uCfKZ0Z0T8Aaf4ircFilcu8zRVDU8XyGdbsq4OW3GaE&e=
>
> Is there something that automatically changes those? I don't want to
> send another patch for it to just get mangled again.
>
Looks like thats the case as one of my Oracle colleague pointed out.
I will send you off-list an email to get correct URL and update the git
tree accordingly.
Regards,
Santosh