| Message ID | 20191107094555.6296b943@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the arm-soc tree | expand |
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi > > between commit: > > 68e36a429ef5 ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Move thermal-zone out of SoC") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 8d49ebe713ab ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Add PCIe controller DT nodes") Bjorn, we ask that driver subsystem maintainers don't pick up DT changes since it causes conflicts like these. Is it easy for you to drop this patch, or are we stuck with it? Ideally it should never have been sent to you in the first place. :( -Olof
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:27:20AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi > > > > between commit: > > > > 68e36a429ef5 ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Move thermal-zone out of SoC") > > > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > > > 8d49ebe713ab ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Add PCIe controller DT nodes") > > Bjorn, we ask that driver subsystem maintainers don't pick up DT > changes since it causes conflicts like these. > > Is it easy for you to drop this patch, or are we stuck with it? > Ideally it should never have been sent to you in the first place. :( Lorenzo, is it feasible for you to drop it from your pci/layerscape branch and repush it? If so, I can redo the merge into my "next" branch. Bjorn
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:18:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:27:20AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 68e36a429ef5 ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Move thermal-zone out of SoC") > > > > > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > > > > > 8d49ebe713ab ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Add PCIe controller DT nodes") > > > > Bjorn, we ask that driver subsystem maintainers don't pick up DT > > changes since it causes conflicts like these. > > > > Is it easy for you to drop this patch, or are we stuck with it? > > Ideally it should never have been sent to you in the first place. :( > > Lorenzo, is it feasible for you to drop it from your pci/layerscape > branch and repush it? If so, I can redo the merge into my "next" > branch. Done. Should we ignore all dts updates from now onwards ? Thanks, Lorenzo
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 5:07 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:18:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:27:20AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > 68e36a429ef5 ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Move thermal-zone out of SoC") > > > > > > > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > > > > > > > 8d49ebe713ab ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Add PCIe controller DT nodes") > > > > > > Bjorn, we ask that driver subsystem maintainers don't pick up DT > > > changes since it causes conflicts like these. > > > > > > Is it easy for you to drop this patch, or are we stuck with it? > > > Ideally it should never have been sent to you in the first place. :( > > > > Lorenzo, is it feasible for you to drop it from your pci/layerscape > > branch and repush it? If so, I can redo the merge into my "next" > > branch. > > Done. ... Thanks, I updated my "next" branch to incorporate this.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 3:07 AM Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 03:18:01PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:27:20AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > 68e36a429ef5 ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Move thermal-zone out of SoC") > > > > > > > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > > > > > > > 8d49ebe713ab ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Add PCIe controller DT nodes") > > > > > > Bjorn, we ask that driver subsystem maintainers don't pick up DT > > > changes since it causes conflicts like these. > > > > > > Is it easy for you to drop this patch, or are we stuck with it? > > > Ideally it should never have been sent to you in the first place. :( > > > > Lorenzo, is it feasible for you to drop it from your pci/layerscape > > branch and repush it? If so, I can redo the merge into my "next" > > branch. > > Done. Should we ignore all dts updates from now onwards ? Thanks! Indeed, dts updates should only go in through the platform maintainers (i.e. through soc tree), unless there are strong reasons to bring them in through driver trees. If there's a need for a dt-include to be shared between driver and dts, getting them on a stable branch that's merged through both trees is usually the best way. Reach out when that happens and we can coordinate. Regards, -Olof
diff --cc arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi index 8e8a77eb596a,71d7c6949b9e..000000000000 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi between commit: 68e36a429ef5 ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Move thermal-zone out of SoC") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 8d49ebe713ab ("arm64: dts: ls1028a: Add PCIe controller DT nodes") from the pci 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.