linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpio/Kconfig

between commit:

  298d75c9b188 ("gpio: tegra: Add missing dependencies")

from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:

  355ef6bb005f ("gpio: tegra: Add dependency on GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP")

from the gpio-brgl tree.

I fixed it up (the former is just a superset of the latter) 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 gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 05:10:49PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:08:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:33:37 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
> > > my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.  
> > 
> > Or you could just merge your for-current branch into your for-next
> > branch and avoid possible issues with all the rest of v6.9 ...
> 
> Or, since it is a pretty simple conflict, just do not merge and just
> mention the conflict to Linus in your merge window PR.

I also would go the latest suggestion.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 663 bytes --]

Hi Stephen,

On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:08:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Bartosz,
> 
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:33:37 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
> > my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.  
> 
> Or you could just merge your for-current branch into your for-next
> branch and avoid possible issues with all the rest of v6.9 ...

Or, since it is a pretty simple conflict, just do not merge and just
mention the conflict to Linus in your merge window PR.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 414 bytes --]

Hi Bartosz,

On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:33:37 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
> my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.

Or you could just merge your for-current branch into your for-next
branch and avoid possible issues with all the rest of v6.9 ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 07:32, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   7765ffed533d ("gpiolib: use a single SRCU struct for all GPIO descriptors")
>
> from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   8a7a61032587 ("gpiolib: Get rid of never false gpio_is_valid() calls")
>
> from the gpio-brgl 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> index 8e0e211ebf08,7f94580efdbc..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> @@@ -62,8 -61,7 +62,8 @@@ struct gpio_device
>         struct module           *owner;
>         struct gpio_chip __rcu  *chip;
>         struct gpio_desc        *descs;
>  +      struct srcu_struct      desc_srcu;
> -       int                     base;
> +       unsigned int            base;
>         u16                     ngpio;
>         bool                    can_sleep;
>         const char              *label;

Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.

Bart

linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1183 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h

between commit:

  7765ffed533d ("gpiolib: use a single SRCU struct for all GPIO descriptors")

from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:

  8a7a61032587 ("gpiolib: Get rid of never false gpio_is_valid() calls")

from the gpio-brgl 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
index 8e0e211ebf08,7f94580efdbc..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
@@@ -62,8 -61,7 +62,8 @@@ struct gpio_device 
  	struct module		*owner;
  	struct gpio_chip __rcu	*chip;
  	struct gpio_desc	*descs;
 +	struct srcu_struct	desc_srcu;
- 	int			base;
+ 	unsigned int		base;
  	u16			ngpio;
  	bool			can_sleep;
  	const char		*label;

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 07:06, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   fc363413ef8e ("gpio: vf610: set value before the direction to avoid a glitch")
>
> from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   b57587f11f81 ("gpio: vf610: simplify code by dropping data check")
>
> from the gpio-brgl 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> index 656d6b1dddb5,a89ae84a1fa0..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> @@@ -126,9 -140,7 +140,9 @@@ static int vf610_gpio_direction_output(
>         unsigned long mask = BIT(gpio);
>         u32 val;
>
>  +      vf610_gpio_set(chip, gpio, value);
>  +
> -       if (port->sdata && port->sdata->have_paddr) {
> +       if (port->sdata->have_paddr) {
>                 val = vf610_gpio_readl(port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);
>                 val |= mask;
>                 vf610_gpio_writel(val, port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);

Thanks Stephen, this is correct.

My for-next tree is currently rebased on top of v6.6-rc1 while the
fixes tree tracks Linus' master.

Once the fixes are upstream, I may just rebase my for-next tree.

Bart

linux-next: manual merge of the gpio-brgl tree with the gpio-brgl-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1305 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c

between commit:

  fc363413ef8e ("gpio: vf610: set value before the direction to avoid a glitch")

from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:

  b57587f11f81 ("gpio: vf610: simplify code by dropping data check")

from the gpio-brgl 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
index 656d6b1dddb5,a89ae84a1fa0..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
@@@ -126,9 -140,7 +140,9 @@@ static int vf610_gpio_direction_output(
  	unsigned long mask = BIT(gpio);
  	u32 val;
  
 +	vf610_gpio_set(chip, gpio, value);
 +
- 	if (port->sdata && port->sdata->have_paddr) {
+ 	if (port->sdata->have_paddr) {
  		val = vf610_gpio_readl(port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);
  		val |= mask;
  		vf610_gpio_writel(val, port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);

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