Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the bluetooth tree

From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
	Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the bluetooth tree
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 19:54:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170507025400.GA16391@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170413133631.2fcefdfa@canb.auug.org.au>

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:36:31PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tty tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/serdev.h
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   b3f80c8f75ef ("serdev: add serdev_device_wait_until_sent")
>   5659dab26f09 ("serdev: implement get/set tiocm")
> 
> from the bluetooth tree and commit:
> 
>   6fe729c4bdae ("serdev: Add serdev_device_write subroutine")
> 
> from the tty 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 include/linux/serdev.h
> index 37395b8eb8f1,0beaff886992..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/serdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/serdev.h
> @@@ -191,10 -190,8 +195,11 @@@ int serdev_device_open(struct serdev_de
>   void serdev_device_close(struct serdev_device *);
>   unsigned int serdev_device_set_baudrate(struct serdev_device *, unsigned int);
>   void serdev_device_set_flow_control(struct serdev_device *, bool);
>  +void serdev_device_wait_until_sent(struct serdev_device *, long);
>  +int serdev_device_get_tiocm(struct serdev_device *);
>  +int serdev_device_set_tiocm(struct serdev_device *, int, int);
> - int serdev_device_write_buf(struct serdev_device *, const unsigned char *, size_t);
> + void serdev_device_write_wakeup(struct serdev_device *);
> + int serdev_device_write(struct serdev_device *, const unsigned char *, size_t, unsigned long);
>   void serdev_device_write_flush(struct serdev_device *);
>   int serdev_device_write_room(struct serdev_device *);
>   
> @@@ -231,16 -228,8 +236,17 @@@ static inline unsigned int serdev_devic
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   static inline void serdev_device_set_flow_control(struct serdev_device *sdev, bool enable) {}
>  +static inline void serdev_device_wait_until_sent(struct serdev_device *sdev, long timeout) {}
>  +static inline int serdev_device_get_tiocm(struct serdev_device *serdev)
>  +{
>  +	return -ENOTSUPP;
>  +}
>  +static inline int serdev_device_set_tiocm(struct serdev_device *serdev, int set, int clear)
>  +{
>  +	return -ENOTSUPP;
>  +}
> - static inline int serdev_device_write_buf(struct serdev_device *sdev, const unsigned char *buf, size_t count)
> + static inline int serdev_device_write(struct serdev_device *sdev, const unsigned char *buf,
> + 				      size_t count, unsigned long timeout)
>   {
>   	return -ENODEV;
>   }

Thanks for the fix, it looks correct to me.  I'll forward this on to
Linus when I send him the pull request.

thanks,

greg k-h