linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the scsi tree

linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Martin,

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

  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c

Again this is caused by the rebase of the scsi-mkp tree (including
commits already in the scsi tree) followed by more changes to this file.

I fixed it up (I used the scsi-mkp tree version) 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

linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1618 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c

between commit:

  86eb94bf8006 ("scsi: Revert "scsi: ufs: core: Initialize devfreq synchronously"")

from the scsi tree and commit:

  543a827b1db3 ("scsi: core: Clean up struct ufs_saved_pwr_info")

from the scsi-mkp 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 drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index c32a927ac5d1,03c47f9a2750..000000000000
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@@ -8422,22 -8429,6 +8422,21 @@@ static int ufshcd_add_lus(struct ufs_hb
  	if (ret)
  		goto out;
  
 +	/* Initialize devfreq after UFS device is detected */
 +	if (ufshcd_is_clkscaling_supported(hba)) {
- 		memcpy(&hba->clk_scaling.saved_pwr_info.info,
++		memcpy(&hba->clk_scaling.saved_pwr_info,
 +			&hba->pwr_info,
 +			sizeof(struct ufs_pa_layer_attr));
- 		hba->clk_scaling.saved_pwr_info.is_valid = true;
 +		hba->clk_scaling.is_allowed = true;
 +
 +		ret = ufshcd_devfreq_init(hba);
 +		if (ret)
 +			goto out;
 +
 +		hba->clk_scaling.is_enabled = true;
 +		ufshcd_init_clk_scaling_sysfs(hba);
 +	}
 +
  	ufs_bsg_probe(hba);
  	ufshpb_init(hba);
  	scsi_scan_host(hba->host);

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the scsi tree

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 09:39 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   07a21872cf2b ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fix queue ID for async abort with
> Multiqueue")
> 
> from the scsi tree and commit:
> 
>   b027a5ace443 ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fix queue ID for async abort with
> Multiqueue")
> 
> from the scsi-mkp tree.
> 
> Looks like you have updated your tree after James has merged it :-(

OK, I pulled my tree into sync now.  I also added the postmerge tree,
which I can rebase if it causes you similar problems (it's based on the
block tree).

James

linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Martin,

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

  drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_init.c

between commit:

  07a21872cf2b ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fix queue ID for async abort with Multiqueue")

from the scsi tree and commit:

  b027a5ace443 ("scsi: qla2xxx: Fix queue ID for async abort with Multiqueue")

from the scsi-mkp tree.

Looks like you have updated your tree after James has merged it :-(

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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