| Message ID | 20210121132645.0a9edc15@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with the net-next tree | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
Hi all, On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:26:45 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > > between commit: > > 19d9a846d9fc ("dt-binding: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: update bindings for am64x cpsw3g") > > from the net-next tree and commit: > > 0499220d6dad ("dt-bindings: Add missing array size constraints") > > from the devicetree 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. > > diff --cc Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > index 3fae9a5f0c6a,097c5cc6c853..000000000000 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > @@@ -72,7 -66,8 +72,8 @@@ properties > dma-coherent: true > > clocks: > + maxItems: 1 > - description: CPSW2G NUSS functional clock > + description: CPSWxG NUSS functional clock > > clock-names: > items: With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this conflict still exists.
Hi all, On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 07:53:21 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:26:45 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in: > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > > > > between commit: > > > > 19d9a846d9fc ("dt-binding: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: update bindings for am64x cpsw3g") > > > > from the net-next tree and commit: > > > > 0499220d6dad ("dt-bindings: Add missing array size constraints") > > > > from the devicetree 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. > > > > diff --cc Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > > index 3fae9a5f0c6a,097c5cc6c853..000000000000 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml > > @@@ -72,7 -66,8 +72,8 @@@ properties > > dma-coherent: true > > > > clocks: > > + maxItems: 1 > > - description: CPSW2G NUSS functional clock > > + description: CPSWxG NUSS functional clock > > > > clock-names: > > items: > > With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this > conflict still exists. This is now a conflict between the devicetree tree and Linus' tree.
On 22/02/2021 10:23, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 07:53:21 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 13:26:45 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>> 19d9a846d9fc ("dt-binding: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: update bindings for am64x cpsw3g") >>> >>> from the net-next tree and commit: >>> >>> 0499220d6dad ("dt-bindings: Add missing array size constraints") >>> >>> from the devicetree 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. >>> >>> diff --cc Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml >>> index 3fae9a5f0c6a,097c5cc6c853..000000000000 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml >>> @@@ -72,7 -66,8 +72,8 @@@ properties >>> dma-coherent: true >>> >>> clocks: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> - description: CPSW2G NUSS functional clock >>> + description: CPSWxG NUSS functional clock >>> >>> clock-names: >>> items: >> >> With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this >> conflict still exists. > > This is now a conflict between the devicetree tree and Linus' tree. > Sorry for inconvenience, is there anything I can do to help resolve it? (Changes went through a different trees)
Hi Grygorii, On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:35:10 +0200 Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote: > > Sorry for inconvenience, is there anything I can do to help resolve it? > (Changes went through a different trees) No, it is fine.
diff --cc Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml index 3fae9a5f0c6a,097c5cc6c853..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml between commit: 19d9a846d9fc ("dt-binding: net: ti: k3-am654-cpsw-nuss: update bindings for am64x cpsw3g") from the net-next tree and commit: 0499220d6dad ("dt-bindings: Add missing array size constraints") from the devicetree 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.