Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200528162215.3a9aa663@canb.auug.org.au> <20200528104916.GD3115014@kroah.com>
 <CAL_JsqKYUOPFS=0rWuUL2HLNz1DdKbYULckAWnCq-0v96-1S4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200529082641.GB847132@kroah.com> <20200529082840.GC847132@kroah.com> <87pnan1677.fsf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87pnan1677.fsf@kernel.org>
From:   Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 08:04:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+cKXO71U_HVG0nZzbQ_B4GwrmcyzkECSTJUAuBzQgcZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the devicetree tree
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sandeep Maheswaram <sanm@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:44 AM Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:26:41AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:14:36AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:49 AM Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:22:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml
> >> > > >
> >> > > > between commit:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   3828026c9ec8 ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > from the devicetree tree and commits:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   cd4b54e2ae1f ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > from the usb tree.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I fixed it up (I guessed, taking most changes from the former) 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.
> >> >
> >> > Ugg, I fixed up a warning on my side...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Sounds good,t hanks.
> >> >
> >> > Greg, can you revert your copy and we can get rid of the conflict.
>
> Did things change recently? I always got the message from DT folks that
> DT changes should go via the driver tree. Has that changed? I can stop
> taking DT patches, no problem.

Not really. Mainly, I've been taking some schema conversions as they
tend to be standalone patches and to make sure they validate (this one
had a warning which I fixed up and that caused the conflict). Most
bindings don't see multiple updates in a cycle, but this one has
obviously become a mess.

If it has my Reviewed/Acked-by, then I'm not taking it. If I applied,
then I've replied saying I did.

Rob