Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231211145056.23fbfd7d@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20231211145056.23fbfd7d@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:15:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CACMJSetGz1fCnqS_HPTLyV8dOWOUtO07-bZKKXu3=3Lk2PGdyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the
 gpio-brgl tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
>
> from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
>
>   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
>
> from the pinctrl-intel 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,6 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se
>                 void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg;
>                 const char *pull_str = NULL;
>                 const char *pull = NULL;
> -               unsigned long flags;
>  -              const char *label;
>                 unsigned int pin;
>
>                 pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number;

Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/

Bart