Re: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with the drm tree

From: Jyri Sarha <jsarha@ti.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, ave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@linaro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with the drm tree
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:40:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <153e4593-2ebb-c091-49c8-b8d44d5caeb5@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171113165831.19ebc9fa@canb.auug.org.au>

On 11/13/17 07:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:37:56 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_slave_compat.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   44cd3939c111b7 ("drm/tilcdc: Remove redundant OF_DETACHED flag setting")
>>
>> from the drm tree and commit:
>>
>>   f948d6d8b792bb ("of: overlay: avoid race condition between applying multiple overlays")
>>
>> 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 drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_slave_compat.c
>> index 482299a6f3b0,54025af534d4..000000000000
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_slave_compat.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_slave_compat.c
>> @@@ -163,12 -162,8 +162,6 @@@ static struct device_node * __init tilc
>>   		return NULL;
>>   	}
>>   
>> - 	ret = of_resolve_phandles(overlay);
>> - 	if (ret) {
>> - 		pr_err("%s: Failed to resolve phandles: %d\n", __func__, ret);
>> - 		return NULL;
>> - 	}
>>  -	of_node_set_flag(overlay, OF_DETACHED);
>> --
>>   	return overlay;
>>   }
>>   
> 
> Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.
> 

After some consideration, I think we can drop the dts backward
compatibility code from drm/tilcdc. It seems that it is causing a lot of
trouble and I do not even know if anybody uses it anymore. Here is a
patch for dropping it:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2017-November/157394.html

I did not plan to merge it before v4.16, but if this is a bigger problem
I can push is right now for v4.15.

Best regards,
Jyri

-- 
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel