On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 11:18:17AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 10:37:44AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello Russell, hello Greg,
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 07:15:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:59:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 05:56:50PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:52:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm glad to take this through my char/misc tree, as that's where the
> > > > > > > other coresight changes flow through.  So if no one else objects, I will
> > > > > > > do so...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Greg, did you end up pulling this after all? If not, Uwe produced a v2.
> > > > > > I haven't merged v2 yet as I don't know what you've done.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I thought you merged this?
> > > > 
> > > > I took v1, and put it in a branch I've promised in the past not to
> > > > rebase/rewind. Uwe is now asking for me to take a v2 or apply a patch
> > > > on top.
> > > > 
> > > > The only reason to produce an "immutable" branch is if it's the basis
> > > > for some dependent work and you need that branch merged into other
> > > > people's trees... so the whole "lets produce a v2" is really odd
> > > > workflow... I'm confused about what I should do, and who has to be
> > > > informed which option I take.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm rather lost here too.
> > > 
> > > Sorry to have cause this confusion. After I saw that my initial tag
> > > missed to adapt a driver I wanted to make it easy for you to fix the
> > > situation.
> > > So I created a patch to fix it and created a second tag with the patch
> > > squashed in. Obviously only one of them have to be picked and I hoped
> > > you (= Russell + Greg) would agree which option to pick.
> > > 
> > > My preference would be if you both pick up v2 of the tag to yield a
> > > history that is bisectable without build problems, but if Russell (who
> > > already picked up the broken tag) considers his tree immutable and so
> > > isn't willing to rebase, then picking up the patch is the way to go.
> > 
> > OK, the current state is that Russell applied the patch fixing
> > drivers/mailbox/arm_mhuv2.c on top of merging my first tag.
> > 
> > So the way forward now is that Greg pulls
> > 
> > 	git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git devel-stable
> > 
> > which currently points to 
> > 
> > 	860660fd829e ("ARM: 9055/1: mailbox: arm_mhuv2: make remove callback return void")
> > 
> > , into his tree that contains the hwtracing changes that conflict with my
> > changes. @Greg: Is this good enough, or do you require a dedicated tag
> > to pull that?
> > 
> > I think these conflicting hwtracing changes are not yet in any of Greg's
> > trees (at least they are not in next).
> > 
> > When I pull
> > 
> > 	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git next
> > 
> > (currently pointing to 4e73ff249184 ("coresight: etm4x: Handle accesses
> > to TRCSTALLCTLR")) into 860660fd829e, I get a conflict in
> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c as expected. My
> > resolution looks as follows:
> 
> Ok, my resolution looked a bit different.
> 
> Can you pull my char-misc-testing branch and verify I got this all
> pulled in correctly?

minor side-note: mentioning the repo url would have simplified that test.

I looked at

	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git char-misc-testing

commit 0573d3fa48640f0fa6b105ff92dcb02b94d6c1ab now.

I didn't compile test, but I'm willing to bet your resolution is wrong.
You have no return statement in etm4_remove_dev() but its return type is
int and etm4_remove_amba() still returns int but should return void.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |