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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200327092741.1dbd3242@canb.auug.org.au> <20200327131831.GC2282366@ulmo>
In-Reply-To: <20200327131831.GC2282366@ulmo>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:50:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3At56pHFJNojHFa=CHQxSXT1dtYTr8_t34AOcooE_b+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree
To:     Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nagarjuna Kristam <nkristam@nvidia.com>,
        JC Kuo <jckuo@nvidia.com>, Corentin Labbe <clabbe@baylibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:18 PM Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:27:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > I fixed it up (I just used the version from the tegra tree) 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.
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> There was a bit of back and forth on this because there happened to be a
> conflict with the USB tree. I tried to clarify this as replies to the PR
> request:
>
>         http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1254523/
>
> But I suspect you may have missed those replies. The bottom line is,
> there is a v2 of the pull request that has the patches that are now in
> the Tegra tree. That's already part of a PR that went in through the USB
> tree as a dependency to resolve the conflict.
>
> So as a result there should be no need for ARM SoC to carry that PR. But
> if you still want to merge it, please pull v2, which is here:
>
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git tags/tegra-for-5.7-phy-v2
>

It was almost at the top of the branch, so I ended up just taking it out now, it
should be gone from the soc tree by tomorrow.

I think I managed to skip it as you asked on my first pass, but then failed to
reread the message when I went through the remaining entries in patchwork.

Clearly my tooling still needs  a bit of improvement.

      Arnd