From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Torgue Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:55:25 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180529155257.5ae48830@canb.auug.org.au> <1bedc0b7-21f9-1e15-a11c-3de06e81b5ba@st.com> <2d647302-0be8-555b-8063-06b0d2d72772@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2d647302-0be8-555b-8063-06b0d2d72772@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Marc Zyngier , Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , ARM Cc: Amelie Delaunay , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ludovic Barre List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 05/29/2018 10:39 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 29/05/18 09:16, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >> Hi Marc >> >> On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >>>> Hi Stephen >>>> >>>> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in: >>>>> >>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi >>>>> >>>>> between commit: >>>>> >>>>> 3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c") >>>>> >>>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >>>>> >>>>> 5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c") >>>>> >>>>> from the irqchip 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 for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion >>>> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my >>>> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule >>>> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine >>>> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I >>>> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ? >>> Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define >>> what you want to do? >> >> Sorry I don't understand your reply. I just say that for series >> containing DT patches + drivers patches, to my point of view it is more >> safe that driver patches are taken by sub-system maintainer (you in this >> case) and that I take DT patches in my tree. > And I'm happy to let you deal with these patches. I'm just asking you > sync with Ludovic to split the series on whichever boundary you wish to > enforce. ok > >>> In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether. >>> >> Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue. > Well, you seem to have a strong opinion about who deals with what. I'll > let Ludovic repost what you and him decide should go via the irqchip tree. It's not a "strong" opinion just my point of view and maybe not the good one. I thought that's the way of working was like I explained. If you prefer 2 series (one for driver patches and another one for DT patches) I will be happy with that. Ludovic, what is your opinion ? Regards Alexandre > > Thanks, > > M. >