2019-07-24 03:03:49

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/sun4i-lradc-keys.txt

between commit:

355fb0e54e85 ("dt-bindings: input: sun4i-lradc-keys: Add A64 compatible")

from Linus' tree and commit:

3f587b3b77b9 ("dt-bindings: input: Convert Allwinner LRADC to a schema")

from the devicetree tree.

I fixed it up (I removed the file - the additions from the former
have been incorporated into the latter) 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) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2019-07-24 19:33:04

by Rob Herring

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:02 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in:
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/sun4i-lradc-keys.txt
>
> between commit:
>
> 355fb0e54e85 ("dt-bindings: input: sun4i-lradc-keys: Add A64 compatible")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 3f587b3b77b9 ("dt-bindings: input: Convert Allwinner LRADC to a schema")
>
> from the devicetree tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I removed the file - the additions from the former
> have been incorporated into the latter) 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.

I've updated my for-next branch to 5.3-rc1, so this should be resolved now.

Rob