linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the drivers-memory tree

linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the drivers-memory tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1633 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/omap2.c

between commit:

  f2f8115fe8b3 ("memory: omap-gpmc: Use a compatible match table when checking for NAND controller")

from the drivers-memory tree and commit:

  0137c74ad873 ("mtd: rawnand: omap2: Add compatible for AM64 SoC")

from the nand tree.

I fixed it up (I used the former version and added the following patch)
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.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 10:41:35 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] fixup for "memory: omap-gpmc: Use a compatible match table when checking for NAND controller"

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 include/linux/platform_data/mtd-nand-omap2.h | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/mtd-nand-omap2.h b/include/linux/platform_data/mtd-nand-omap2.h
index 92f011805ad4..8c2f1f185353 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/mtd-nand-omap2.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/mtd-nand-omap2.h
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct gpmc_nand_regs {
 
 static const struct of_device_id omap_nand_ids[] = {
 	{ .compatible = "ti,omap2-nand", },
+	{ .compatible = "ti,am64-nand", },
 	{},
 };
 
-- 
2.33.0

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the drivers-memory tree

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 23/12/2021 00:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the nand tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/omap2.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   f2f8115fe8b3 ("memory: omap-gpmc: Use a compatible match table when checking for NAND controller")
> 
> from the drivers-memory tree and commit:
> 
>   0137c74ad873 ("mtd: rawnand: omap2: Add compatible for AM64 SoC")
> 
> from the nand tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the former version and added the following patch)
> 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 Stephen, the fix looks correct.

Roger,
It seems you sent two separate patches touching exactly the same files
recently for two different trees. One for memory controllers moving the
NAND ids and second for MTD tree with adding new compatible.
Please don't, instead second should base on the other and these should
go via one tree. This is a non-trivial conflict which could be avoided.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the drivers-memory tree

[Roger Quadros]

On 23/12/2021 23:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 00:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the nand tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/omap2.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   f2f8115fe8b3 ("memory: omap-gpmc: Use a compatible match table when checking for NAND controller")
>>
>> from the drivers-memory tree and commit:
>>
>>   0137c74ad873 ("mtd: rawnand: omap2: Add compatible for AM64 SoC")
>>
>> from the nand tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I used the former version and added the following patch)
>> 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 Stephen, the fix looks correct.
> 
> Roger,
> It seems you sent two separate patches touching exactly the same files
> recently for two different trees. One for memory controllers moving the
> NAND ids and second for MTD tree with adding new compatible.
> Please don't, instead second should base on the other and these should
> go via one tree. This is a non-trivial conflict which could be avoided.

Thanks Stephen and Krzysztof.

Sorry for the trouble. I will be more careful next time.

cheers,
-roger