linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 422 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 123ccfcc632a ("Revert
merge of sunxi/dt") from the arm-soc tree and commits from the sunxi
tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from the sunxi tree) and can
carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 422 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 123ccfcc632a ("Revert
merge of sunxi/dt") from the arm-soc tree and commits from the sunxi
tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from the sunxi tree) and can
carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 123ccfcc632a ("Revert
merge of sunxi/dt") from the arm-soc tree and commits from the sunxi
tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from the sunxi tree) and can
carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20141124/46e25d22/attachment.sig>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 08:54:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:20:17 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > > 
> > > from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > > 
> > > from the sunxi tree.
> > > 
> > > These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
> > > version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
> > 
> > The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
> > linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
> > PR
> > 
> > Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away
> 
> I am still getting the same conflict (but between Linus' tree and the
> sunxi tree).  It looks like the sunxi tree has not been updated since
> October 6 ...

Yeah, the PR has never been picked up by arm-soc. I've pushed a new
branch based on 5.10-rc1 on our repo, it should solve the conflict.

Sorry for the inconvenience
Maxime


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 08:54:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:20:17 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > > 
> > > from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > > 
> > > from the sunxi tree.
> > > 
> > > These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
> > > version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
> > 
> > The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
> > linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
> > PR
> > 
> > Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away
> 
> I am still getting the same conflict (but between Linus' tree and the
> sunxi tree).  It looks like the sunxi tree has not been updated since
> October 6 ...

Yeah, the PR has never been picked up by arm-soc. I've pushed a new
branch based on 5.10-rc1 on our repo, it should solve the conflict.

Sorry for the inconvenience
Maxime


[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1162 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:20:17 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > 
> > from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > 
> > from the sunxi tree.
> > 
> > These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
> > version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
> 
> The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
> linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
> PR
> 
> Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away

I am still getting the same conflict (but between Linus' tree and the
sunxi tree).  It looks like the sunxi tree has not been updated since
October 6 ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1162 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 15:20:17 +0200 Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > 
> > from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> > 
> >   7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> > 
> > from the sunxi tree.
> > 
> > These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
> > version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
> 
> The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
> linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
> PR
> 
> Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away

I am still getting the same conflict (but between Linus' tree and the
sunxi tree).  It looks like the sunxi tree has not been updated since
October 6 ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1242 bytes --]

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> 
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> 
>   7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> 
> from the sunxi tree.
> 
> These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
> version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
> 
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.

The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
PR

Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away

maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1242 bytes --]

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 02:56:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> 
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> 
>   7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")
> 
> from the sunxi tree.
> 
> These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
> version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.
> 
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.

The branch in arm-soc has a build breakage (that doesn't happen in
linux-next since the clk tree has the commit to fix it) so I sent a new
PR

Once that PR is in arm-soc, I guess that merge issue will go away

maxime

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi

between commit:

  0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")

from the arm-soc tree and commit:

  7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")

from the sunxi tree.

These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.

I fixed it up (see above) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a100.dtsi

between commit:

  0dea1794f3b4 ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")

from the arm-soc tree and commit:

  7e66a778cb8b ("arm64: allwinner: A100: add the basical Allwinner A100 DTSI file")

from the sunxi tree.

These are 2 versions of the same patch.  For now I am just using the
version in the arm-soc tree ... please sort this out.

I fixed it up (see above) 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

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
>
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
>
> between commit:
>
>    8dccafaa281aa1 ("arm: dts: fix unit-address leading 0s")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and various commits from the sunxi 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 think I did the same merge when I pulled in the sunxi/dt branch
today, so it should be resolved next time.

      Arnd

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:
>
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
>    arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
>
> between commit:
>
>    8dccafaa281aa1 ("arm: dts: fix unit-address leading 0s")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and various commits from the sunxi 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 think I did the same merge when I pulled in the sunxi/dt branch
today, so it should be resolved next time.

      Arnd

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:

   arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi

between commit:

   8dccafaa281aa1 ("arm: dts: fix unit-address leading 0s")

from the arm-soc tree and various commits from the sunxi 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 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
index b9b138a36686,b91300d49a31..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
index ca46bd223ebb,8bfa12b548e0..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
index 08bea4f5616d,228c368537a0..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
index f2dcf97a0d08,d7a71e726a9f..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Mark Brown]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:

   arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
   arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi

between commit:

   8dccafaa281aa1 ("arm: dts: fix unit-address leading 0s")

from the arm-soc tree and various commits from the sunxi 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 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
index b9b138a36686,b91300d49a31..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
index ca46bd223ebb,8bfa12b548e0..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
index 08bea4f5616d,228c368537a0..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
index f2dcf97a0d08,d7a71e726a9f..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20171030/24cfadb6/attachment.sig>

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi

between commit:

  4367c1d84655 ("dts: sun8i-h3: correct UART3 pin definitions")

from the arm-soc tree and commits:

  acac77949d26 ("ARM: sunxi: Remove useless allwinner,drive property")
  3872abae96ef ("ARM: sunxi: Remove useless allwinner,pull property")
  264969c22623 ("ARM: sunxi: Convert pinctrl nodes to generic bindings")

from the sunxi 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 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi
index 6c14a6f72820,fca66bf2dec5..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi
@@@ -425,10 -406,8 +406,8 @@@
  			};
  
  			uart3_pins: uart3 {
- 				allwinner,pins = "PA13", "PA14";
- 				allwinner,function = "uart3";
- 				allwinner,drive = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_10_MA>;
- 				allwinner,pull = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_NO_PULL>;
 -				pins = "PG13", "PG14";
++				pins = "PA13", "PA14";
+ 				function = "uart3";
  			};
  		};
  

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi

between commit:

  4367c1d84655 ("dts: sun8i-h3: correct UART3 pin definitions")

from the arm-soc tree and commits:

  acac77949d26 ("ARM: sunxi: Remove useless allwinner,drive property")
  3872abae96ef ("ARM: sunxi: Remove useless allwinner,pull property")
  264969c22623 ("ARM: sunxi: Convert pinctrl nodes to generic bindings")

from the sunxi 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 arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi
index 6c14a6f72820,fca66bf2dec5..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-h3.dtsi
@@@ -425,10 -406,8 +406,8 @@@
  			};
  
  			uart3_pins: uart3 {
- 				allwinner,pins = "PA13", "PA14";
- 				allwinner,function = "uart3";
- 				allwinner,drive = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_10_MA>;
- 				allwinner,pull = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_NO_PULL>;
 -				pins = "PG13", "PG14";
++				pins = "PA13", "PA14";
+ 				function = "uart3";
  			};
  		};
  

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2160 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:36:17AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 3fd0c05da46c ("Revert
> "ARM: dts: sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2
> clocks."") from the arm-soc tree and commit 74c947ab33c9 ("ARM: dts:
> sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2 clocks") from the
> sunxi tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the arm-soc version for now) and can carry
> the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
> index 529c73803976,f47156b6572b..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
> @@@ -217,19 -229,11 +229,19 @@@
>   					"apb1_daudio1";
>   		};
>   
>  -		apb2: clk@01c20058 {
>  +		apb2_mux: apb2_mux@01c20058 {
>  +			#clock-cells = <0>;
>  +			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-mux-clk";
>  +			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
>  +			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
>  +			clock-output-names = "apb2_mux";
>  +		};
>  +
>  +		apb2: apb2@01c20058 {
>   			#clock-cells = <0>;
> - 			compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-apb2-div-clk";
> + 			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
>   			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
> - 			clocks = <&apb2_mux>;
> + 			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
>   			clock-output-names = "apb2";
>   		};
>   

I'm not exactly sure why there is still conflicts between my branches
and arm-soc, since the previous branch that generates these conflicts
was supposed to be dropped, but the correct fix is:

		apb2: clk@01c20058 {
			#clock-cells = <0>;
			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
			clock-output-names = "apb2";
		};

with the apb2_mux node dropped entirely.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Maxime Ripard]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:36:17AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 3fd0c05da46c ("Revert
> "ARM: dts: sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2
> clocks."") from the arm-soc tree and commit 74c947ab33c9 ("ARM: dts:
> sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2 clocks") from the
> sunxi tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the arm-soc version for now) and can carry
> the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
> index 529c73803976,f47156b6572b..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
> @@@ -217,19 -229,11 +229,19 @@@
>   					"apb1_daudio1";
>   		};
>   
>  -		apb2: clk at 01c20058 {
>  +		apb2_mux: apb2_mux at 01c20058 {
>  +			#clock-cells = <0>;
>  +			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-mux-clk";
>  +			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
>  +			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
>  +			clock-output-names = "apb2_mux";
>  +		};
>  +
>  +		apb2: apb2 at 01c20058 {
>   			#clock-cells = <0>;
> - 			compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-apb2-div-clk";
> + 			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
>   			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
> - 			clocks = <&apb2_mux>;
> + 			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
>   			clock-output-names = "apb2";
>   		};
>   

I'm not exactly sure why there is still conflicts between my branches
and arm-soc, since the previous branch that generates these conflicts
was supposed to be dropped, but the correct fix is:

		apb2: clk at 01c20058 {
			#clock-cells = <0>;
			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
			clock-output-names = "apb2";
		};

with the apb2_mux node dropped entirely.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20141128/63f17231/attachment-0001.sig>

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1404 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 3fd0c05da46c ("Revert
"ARM: dts: sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2
clocks."") from the arm-soc tree and commit 74c947ab33c9 ("ARM: dts:
sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2 clocks") from the
sunxi tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the arm-soc version for now) and can carry
the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
index 529c73803976,f47156b6572b..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
@@@ -217,19 -229,11 +229,19 @@@
  					"apb1_daudio1";
  		};
  
 -		apb2: clk@01c20058 {
 +		apb2_mux: apb2_mux@01c20058 {
 +			#clock-cells = <0>;
 +			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-mux-clk";
 +			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
 +			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
 +			clock-output-names = "apb2_mux";
 +		};
 +
 +		apb2: apb2@01c20058 {
  			#clock-cells = <0>;
- 			compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-apb2-div-clk";
+ 			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
  			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
- 			clocks = <&apb2_mux>;
+ 			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
  			clock-output-names = "apb2";
  		};
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1404 bytes --]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 3fd0c05da46c ("Revert
"ARM: dts: sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2
clocks."") from the arm-soc tree and commit 74c947ab33c9 ("ARM: dts:
sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2 clocks") from the
sunxi tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the arm-soc version for now) and can carry
the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
index 529c73803976,f47156b6572b..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
@@@ -217,19 -229,11 +229,19 @@@
  					"apb1_daudio1";
  		};
  
 -		apb2: clk@01c20058 {
 +		apb2_mux: apb2_mux@01c20058 {
 +			#clock-cells = <0>;
 +			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-mux-clk";
 +			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
 +			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
 +			clock-output-names = "apb2_mux";
 +		};
 +
 +		apb2: apb2@01c20058 {
  			#clock-cells = <0>;
- 			compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-apb2-div-clk";
+ 			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
  			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
- 			clocks = <&apb2_mux>;
+ 			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
  			clock-output-names = "apb2";
  		};
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Maxime,

Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi between commit 3fd0c05da46c ("Revert
"ARM: dts: sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2
clocks."") from the arm-soc tree and commit 74c947ab33c9 ("ARM: dts:
sunxi: Use sun4i-a10-apb1-clk for sun6i/sun8i apb2 clocks") from the
sunxi tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the arm-soc version for now) and can carry
the fix as necessary (no action is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
index 529c73803976,f47156b6572b..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi
@@@ -217,19 -229,11 +229,19 @@@
  					"apb1_daudio1";
  		};
  
 -		apb2: clk at 01c20058 {
 +		apb2_mux: apb2_mux at 01c20058 {
 +			#clock-cells = <0>;
 +			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-mux-clk";
 +			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
 +			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
 +			clock-output-names = "apb2_mux";
 +		};
 +
 +		apb2: apb2 at 01c20058 {
  			#clock-cells = <0>;
- 			compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-apb2-div-clk";
+ 			compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk";
  			reg = <0x01c20058 0x4>;
- 			clocks = <&apb2_mux>;
+ 			clocks = <&osc32k>, <&osc24M>, <&pll6 0>, <&pll6 0>;
  			clock-output-names = "apb2";
  		};
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20141128/5803187a/attachment.sig>