Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a
conflict in:
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
between commits:
0d5bad14226a ("iwlwifi: rename structs to fit the new names")
972d8e137779 ("iwlwifi: add new 0x2723/0x2080 card for 22000")
from the wireless-drivers tree and commit:
ef8a913766cd ("iwlwifi: remove misconfigured pci ids from 22260 series")
from the wireless-drivers-next 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/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
index 9f1af8da9dc1,0329b626ada6..000000000000
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
@@@ -953,19 -953,15 +953,15 @@@ static const struct pci_device_id iwl_h
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0xA0F0, 0x1652, killer1650i_2ax_cfg_qu_b0_hr_b0)},
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0xA0F0, 0x4070, iwl_ax101_cfg_qu_hr)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x0080, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x0084, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x0088, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x008C, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x0080, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x0084, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x0088, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x008C, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x1653, killer1650w_2ax_cfg)},
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x1654, killer1650x_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x2080, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x4080, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x4088, iwl22260_2ax_cfg)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x2080, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x4080, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
+ {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2723, 0x4088, iwl_ax200_cfg_cc)},
-
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x1a56, 0x1653, killer1650w_2ax_cfg)},
- {IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x1a56, 0x1654, killer1650x_2ax_cfg)},
-
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x2725, 0x0090, iwlax210_2ax_cfg_so_hr_a0)},
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x7A70, 0x0090, iwlax210_2ax_cfg_so_hr_a0)},
{IWL_PCI_DEVICE(0x7A70, 0x0310, iwlax210_2ax_cfg_so_hr_a0)},
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> writes:
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a
> conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 0d5bad14226a ("iwlwifi: rename structs to fit the new names")
> 972d8e137779 ("iwlwifi: add new 0x2723/0x2080 card for 22000")
>
> from the wireless-drivers tree and commit:
>
> ef8a913766cd ("iwlwifi: remove misconfigured pci ids from 22260 series")
>
> from the wireless-drivers-next 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, I'll let Dave know about this when he pulls w-d-next.
--
Kalle Valo
On Tue, 2019-04-30 at 14:08 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a
> conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/file.h
>
> between commit:
>
> b35f63972c5c ("iwlwifi: dbg_ini: check debug TLV type explicitly")
>
> from the wireless-drivers tree and commit:
>
> aee1b6385e29 ("iwlwifi: support fseq tlv and print fseq version")
>
> from the wireless-drivers-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the latter is a superset of 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.
Thanks, Stephen!
Your resolution is correct, thanks. I accidentally included the block
that was already in b35f63972c5c when I rebased aee1b6385e29, but it's
harmless (except for the minimal conflict it causes).
--
Cheers,
Luca.