Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc
 tree
To:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@st.com>,
        Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com>
References: <20180529155257.5ae48830@canb.auug.org.au>
 <1bedc0b7-21f9-1e15-a11c-3de06e81b5ba@st.com>
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Organization: ARM Ltd
Message-ID: <c306fbd9-21d9-5345-e820-52bc23d1b7c7@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 08:47:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1bedc0b7-21f9-1e15-a11c-3de06e81b5ba@st.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> Hi Stephen
> 
> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>>    5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c")
>>
>> from the irqchip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
>>
> 
> Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion 
> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my 
> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule 
> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine 
> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I 
> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ?
Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define
what you want to do?

In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...