Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/Kconfig
drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mdfld_device.c
drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mdfld_dsi_output.c
drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mdfld_output.c
drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/tc35876x-dsi-lvds.c
between commits:
b51035c200bd ("drm/gma500: Remove Medfield support")
837f23bb4b60 ("drm/gma500: Drop DRM_GMA3600 config option")
from the drm-misc tree and commit:
bfc838f8598e ("drm/gma500: Convert to use new SCU IPC API")
25ded39ad064 ("drm/gma500: Get rid of duplicate NULL checks")
from the drivers-x86 tree.
I fixed it up (the former removed the text that was updated by the
latter and removed the last 4 files) 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 Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:04 AM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
>
> Thanks. I already asked Patrik yesterday day if DRM missed to pull an immutable tag I provided. I think they can pull and resolve conflicts themselves. Alternatively it would be easy to resolve by Linus by removing Kconfig lines along with mentioned files,
Patrik, I have sent a PR again, so you may consider pulling it, thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:07 PM Andy Shevchenko
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:04 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > Thanks. I already asked Patrik yesterday day if DRM missed to pull an immutable tag I provided. I think they can pull and resolve conflicts themselves. Alternatively it would be easy to resolve by Linus by removing Kconfig lines along with mentioned files,
>
> Patrik, I have sent a PR again, so you may consider pulling it, thanks!
Daniel, is this something you can pull into drm or ask one of the
drm-misc maintainers to do?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 3:05 PM Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:14 PM Patrik Jakobsson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:07 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:04 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. I already asked Patrik yesterday day if DRM missed to pull an immutable tag I provided. I think they can pull and resolve conflicts themselves. Alternatively it would be easy to resolve by Linus by removing Kconfig lines along with mentioned files,
> > >
> > > Patrik, I have sent a PR again, so you may consider pulling it, thanks!
> >
> > Daniel, is this something you can pull into drm or ask one of the
> > drm-misc maintainers to do?
>
> We've already created the conflict, and my understanding is that Linus
> wants to have visibility into conflict-y stuff and doesn't mind at all
> resolving conflicts. Hence for 5.12 I think we're fine as-is.
Fine with me!
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:14 PM Patrik Jakobsson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:07 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:04 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > Thanks. I already asked Patrik yesterday day if DRM missed to pull an immutable tag I provided. I think they can pull and resolve conflicts themselves. Alternatively it would be easy to resolve by Linus by removing Kconfig lines along with mentioned files,
> >
> > Patrik, I have sent a PR again, so you may consider pulling it, thanks!
>
> Daniel, is this something you can pull into drm or ask one of the
> drm-misc maintainers to do?
We've already created the conflict, and my understanding is that Linus
wants to have visibility into conflict-y stuff and doesn't mind at all
resolving conflicts. Hence for 5.12 I think we're fine as-is.
Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Hi all,
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:58:46 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/Kconfig
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mdfld_device.c
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mdfld_dsi_output.c
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/mdfld_output.c
> drivers/gpu/drm/gma500/tc35876x-dsi-lvds.c
>
> between commits:
>
> b51035c200bd ("drm/gma500: Remove Medfield support")
Now
e1da811218d2 ("drm/gma500: Remove Medfield support")
> 837f23bb4b60 ("drm/gma500: Drop DRM_GMA3600 config option")
Now
26499e0518a7 ("drm/gma500: Drop DRM_GMA3600 config option")
>
> from the drm-misc tree and commit:
>
> bfc838f8598e ("drm/gma500: Convert to use new SCU IPC API")
> 25ded39ad064 ("drm/gma500: Get rid of duplicate NULL checks")
>
> from the drivers-x86 tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the text that was updated by the
> latter and removed the last 4 files) 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.
With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this
conflict still exists.
The two drivers-x86 tree commits have also been merged into the pm tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell