From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:38:47 +0000
Message-ID: <20171113103847.GA28196@red-moon>
References: <20171101075723.20965225@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20171113170953.0cdda59d@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20171113091507.fctbn7xtykyd6zvz@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44964 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751472AbdKMKib (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:38:31 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171113091507.fctbn7xtykyd6zvz@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:15:08AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 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).

Indeed, that's the planned course of action, thanks for the heads-up.

Lorenzo