Hi,

Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> writes:

>> >> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/qcom,dwc3.yaml
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > between commit:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >   3828026c9ec8 ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > from the devicetree tree and commits:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >   cd4b54e2ae1f ("dt-bindings: usb: qcom,dwc3: Convert USB DWC3 bindings")
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > from the usb tree.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I fixed it up (I guessed, taking most changes from 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ugg, I fixed up a warning on my side...
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Sounds good,t hanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Greg, can you revert your copy and we can get rid of the conflict.
>>
>> Did things change recently? I always got the message from DT folks that
>> DT changes should go via the driver tree. Has that changed? I can stop
>> taking DT patches, no problem.
>
> Not really. Mainly, I've been taking some schema conversions as they
> tend to be standalone patches and to make sure they validate (this one
> had a warning which I fixed up and that caused the conflict). Most
> bindings don't see multiple updates in a cycle, but this one has
> obviously become a mess.
>
> If it has my Reviewed/Acked-by, then I'm not taking it. If I applied,
> then I've replied saying I did.

fair enough, I may have missed your reply and ended up taking the patch
together with a bigger series.

-- 
balbi