linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v-mc tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v-mc tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v-mc tree got a conflict in:

  arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs.dtsi

between commits:

  3f67e6997603 ("riscv: dts: microchip: mpfs: fix incorrect pcie child node name")
  e4009c5fa77b ("riscv: dts: microchip: mpfs: remove pci axi address translation property")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  2ad0883d86c8 ("riscv: dts: microchip: move the mpfs' pci node to -fabric.dtsi")

from the risc-v-mc tree.

I fixed it up (the latter change seems to include the other 2) 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

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v-mc tree with Linus' tree

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 05:19:05AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v-mc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/mpfs.dtsi
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   3f67e6997603 ("riscv: dts: microchip: mpfs: fix incorrect pcie child node name")
>   e4009c5fa77b ("riscv: dts: microchip: mpfs: remove pci axi address translation property")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   2ad0883d86c8 ("riscv: dts: microchip: move the mpfs' pci node to -fabric.dtsi")
> 
> from the risc-v-mc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the latter change seems to include the other 2) and can

Yup, I test merged it after applying and that was my resolution too.
Thanks Stephen.

> 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