From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1426101AbdDUVoS (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:44:18 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:36854 "EHLO mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162411AbdDUVoP (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:44:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170421105405.6a690b35@canb.auug.org.au> <4b58d5ab-c924-97af-728f-b9f524e62a53@oracle.com> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:44:09 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xrLvdHcpI4KyFUD9gRT6dbi77Ig Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree To: "santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com" Cc: Stephen Rothwell , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , ARM , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Gerlach , Santosh Shilimkar , Nishanth Menon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com wrote: > On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com >> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of >> them is your keystone tree: >> > In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. > > ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g > 52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver > 7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains > 213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells > a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct > >> arm-soc/next/drivers: >> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g >> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver >> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains >> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle >> cells >> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct >> > Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular http://www.ti.org URL that is in linux-next? Arnd