From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753472Ab3H0QRZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:17:25 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:55908 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751905Ab3H0QRY (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:17:24 -0400 Message-ID: <521CD111.9030905@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:17:21 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with Linus' tree References: <20130827182935.ff4005b60cc1ce80d32d5e46@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20130827182935.ff4005b60cc1ce80d32d5e46@canb.auug.org.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/27/2013 02:29 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-trimslice.dts between commit > 30ca2226bea6 ("ARM: tegra: always enable USB VBUS regulators") from > Linus' tree and commit 23f95ef2d951 ("ARM: tegra: use TEGRA_GPIO() > in a couple more places") from the arm-soc tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no > action is required). > diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-trimslice.dts > usb@c5000000 { status = "okay"; - nvidia,vbus-gpio = <&gpio > TEGRA_GPIO(V, 2) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; }; That chunk isn't part of either of the two commits above. It is however part of commit 103566e "arm: tegra: Remove obsolete nvidia,vbus-gpio properties" from the USB tree, so it's fine that the change is part of linux-next. I'm just not sure if it's expected for that chunk to show up in this merge resolution email? If it's normal, then there's no problem; the issue would be with me not having too much git merge conflict resolution experience:-)