Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

Hi Stephen,

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 05:09:53PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 07:57:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   37f6b42e9c29 ("ACPI/IORT: Fix PCI ACS enablement")
> > 
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > 
> >   896dd2c32484 ("ACPI/IORT: Make platform devices initialization code SMMU agnostic")
> > 
> > from the arm64 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/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > index de56394dd161,7dc964f4d8f1..000000000000
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > @@@ -1215,7 -1326,7 +1357,8 @@@ static void __init iort_init_platform_d
> >   	struct acpi_table_iort *iort;
> >   	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> >   	int i, ret;
> >  +	bool acs_enabled = false;
> > + 	const struct iort_dev_config *ops;
> >   
> >   	/*
> >   	 * iort_table and iort both point to the start of IORT table, but
> > @@@ -1235,12 -1346,8 +1378,11 @@@
> >   			return;
> >   		}
> >   
> >  +		if (!acs_enabled)
> >  +			acs_enabled = iort_enable_acs(iort_node);
> >  +
> > - 		if ((iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU) ||
> > - 			(iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU_V3)) {
> > - 
> > + 		ops = iort_get_dev_cfg(iort_node);
> > + 		if (ops) {
> >   			fwnode = acpi_alloc_fwnode_static();
> >   			if (!fwnode)
> >   				return;
> 
> Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

Thanks for the reminder. Will (cc'ed) is handling this merging window
and AFAIK the pull request will go with this conflict unsolved (to avoid
a back merge from a newer Linus tree commit).

-- 
Catalin