From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sunxi tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:51:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171030122200.z5sj2riar4vfoiwo@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:43070 "EHLO mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751837AbdJ3NvU (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:51:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171030122200.z5sj2riar4vfoiwo@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Brown Cc: Rob Herring , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Linux ARM , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the sunxi tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm/boot/dts/sunxi-h3-h5.dtsi > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun7i-a20.dtsi > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun6i-a31.dtsi > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi > > between commit: > > 8dccafaa281aa1 ("arm: dts: fix unit-address leading 0s") > > from the arm-soc tree and various commits from the sunxi 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. Thanks! I think I did the same merge when I pulled in the sunxi/dt branch today, so it should be resolved next time. Arnd