From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1035843AbdDUGj6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:39:58 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:37044 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1035757AbdDUGj5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:39:57 -0400 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree To: Arnd Bergmann , Stephen Rothwell References: <20170421105405.6a690b35@canb.auug.org.au> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , ARM , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Gerlach , Santosh Shilimkar , Nishanth Menon From: "santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com" Organization: Oracle Corporation Message-ID: <4b58d5ab-c924-97af-728f-b9f524e62a53@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:39:11 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: >> >> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h >> >> between commit: >> >> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") >> >> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >> >> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") >> >> from the pm tree. >> >> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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. > > Dave, Santosh, > > any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong > version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? > Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have only arm-soc copy. Regards, Santosh