From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0097C433F5 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B779461056 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235697AbhJLJbR (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 05:31:17 -0400 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com ([68.232.154.123]:58539 "EHLO esa.microchip.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232657AbhJLJbQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 05:31:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1634030954; x=1665566954; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f3zZcvsgAiAmDQe4g9mSaMYXTlCLVZMEuAwXlFHxwYU=; b=2ss94vVkTdkGMLnVpsdLierAWA4fwUynFOI9E08azf3mHIN3vBnD98Ch Lv4g22uDKTTkJn2cuhewlsORjzRaKXOobM1KrqF4f8RxGpQyc9jc/tgkt pmF2iCIVrkZrpIDVlgQabMjSv5Qb9lKgnD4IEr0+aig6A/q3UCYN8j2bF krCDszX2P+dzXXyT6p+SpBNPLeo4B9QJ2El0QhwPQ/YgtWLictApHRmgM Iz1J4YVcpmVU14yZd3dyTaDnM9Inms/MlioZGQwmTlOl0jV2QMT04Iwh5 Ag/xmqaMThitSgD4iOltcLTKZFOslzIsEFqe8OmxWb90No42kEliack9H g==; IronPort-SDR: y87y+K9Hh6Mb34RNV4RLDg1P1CZg9BjmWlrrkj20sLlK+WnHeIdMJUhE0fx+bu++F63I5NqA1j ARsNUVvJ83mEMboIgRNHJ/TZmFXEGd+c+s6cKubypHAS28l49/0+Eir33DTFMFh89fuL4Ltabz WZrgpA/TYy1y56h7w6bz9KEVoMYfNdcujXNMtAKw6oP0fpmBxNULYogaIFxgq8CVLciWEYnLya kA8GPCmBFWg7KR+UVsu4bLm9auP7pcG95c78AHqX3kmOu5sITPv20CXsLELyWMpx0wQx00FbR2 kAl5IDcHJoc8zJaWSYaylyb0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,367,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="72636433" Received: from smtpout.microchip.com (HELO email.microchip.com) ([198.175.253.82]) by esa6.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 12 Oct 2021 02:29:14 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) by chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.14; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 02:29:13 -0700 Received: from [10.159.245.112] (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2176.14 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 02:29:12 -0700 Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the arm-soc tree To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List References: <20211012110309.17d51c3e@canb.auug.org.au> <97e578a3-b12e-1975-717d-a0cf663673f0@microchip.com> From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: microchip Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 11:29:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/10/2021 at 09:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:35 AM Nicolas Ferre > wrote: >> On 12/10/2021 at 02:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> >>> After merging the arm-soc tree, today's linux-next build (arm >>> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this: >>> >>> Error: arch/arm/boot/dts/sama7g5.dtsi:167.3-7 syntax error >>> FATAL ERROR: Unable to parse input tree >>> >>> Caused by commit >>> >>> 9be4be3ed1ec ("Merge branch 'arm/dt' into for-next") > > Thank you for the report! > > I had verified the arm/dt branch by itself, but didn't recheck it after I > merged it into the for-next branch. At least that one is easy to fix > up as I don't send the combined branch to Linus, and the arm/dt > branch does not have the problem. > >> I had following patch to have the nodes in alphabetical order: >> > ... >> >> Sorry for not having mentioned this conflict in the pull-request. > > No worries, > > I had assumed you had them sorted by unit-address, so I had them > in the wrong order as well. Fixing up both issues in for-next > now by redoing the merge. OMG, you're right, it's by unit-address: I'm removing my at91-next for now to not cause more confusion and merge conflicts. Not a big deal if you already re-did the merge. Best regards, Nicolas -- Nicolas Ferre