All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	Nate Watterson <nwatters@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:50:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171019125005.GA18883@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171019112833.2h5ah7tidjnkvo7o@sirena.co.uk>

[+Will]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:28:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   37f6b42e9c296 ("ACPI/IORT: Fix PCI ACS enablement")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   896dd2c324842 ("ACPI/IORT: Make platform devices initialization code SMMU agnostic")
> 
> from the arm64 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
> 
> diff --cc drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> index de56394dd161,7dc964f4d8f1..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> @@@ -1215,7 -1326,7 +1357,8 @@@ static void __init iort_init_platform_d
>   	struct acpi_table_iort *iort;
>   	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>   	int i, ret;
>  +	bool acs_enabled = false;
> + 	const struct iort_dev_config *ops;
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * iort_table and iort both point to the start of IORT table, but
> @@@ -1235,12 -1346,8 +1378,11 @@@
>   			return;
>   		}
>   
>  +		if (!acs_enabled)
>  +			acs_enabled = iort_enable_acs(iort_node);
>  +
> - 		if ((iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU) ||
> - 			(iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU_V3)) {
> - 
> + 		ops = iort_get_dev_cfg(iort_node);
> + 		if (ops) {
>   			fwnode = acpi_alloc_fwnode_static();
>   			if (!fwnode)
>   				return;

Hi Mark,

it is expected and that's the right conflict resolution:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=150817031118241&w=2

Thank you,
Lorenzo

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:50:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171019125005.GA18883@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171019112833.2h5ah7tidjnkvo7o@sirena.co.uk>

[+Will]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:28:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   37f6b42e9c296 ("ACPI/IORT: Fix PCI ACS enablement")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   896dd2c324842 ("ACPI/IORT: Make platform devices initialization code SMMU agnostic")
> 
> from the arm64 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
> 
> diff --cc drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> index de56394dd161,7dc964f4d8f1..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> @@@ -1215,7 -1326,7 +1357,8 @@@ static void __init iort_init_platform_d
>   	struct acpi_table_iort *iort;
>   	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>   	int i, ret;
>  +	bool acs_enabled = false;
> + 	const struct iort_dev_config *ops;
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * iort_table and iort both point to the start of IORT table, but
> @@@ -1235,12 -1346,8 +1378,11 @@@
>   			return;
>   		}
>   
>  +		if (!acs_enabled)
>  +			acs_enabled = iort_enable_acs(iort_node);
>  +
> - 		if ((iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU) ||
> - 			(iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU_V3)) {
> - 
> + 		ops = iort_get_dev_cfg(iort_node);
> + 		if (ops) {
>   			fwnode = acpi_alloc_fwnode_static();
>   			if (!fwnode)
>   				return;

Hi Mark,

it is expected and that's the right conflict resolution:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=150817031118241&w=2

Thank you,
Lorenzo

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-19 12:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-19 11:28 linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree Mark Brown
2017-10-19 11:28 ` Mark Brown
2017-10-19 12:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2017-10-19 12:50   ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-11-12 22:55 Stephen Rothwell
2025-05-21  1:34 Stephen Rothwell
2025-05-21  8:40 ` Will Deacon
2023-01-24 21:36 Stephen Rothwell
2023-01-25  9:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-03-08 22:42 Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-09 12:20 ` Will Deacon
2022-03-08 22:38 Stephen Rothwell
2021-11-03 22:32 Stephen Rothwell
2021-11-05  9:34 ` Will Deacon
2021-03-28 22:29 Stephen Rothwell
2021-03-29  9:22 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-07-26 23:18 Stephen Rothwell
2019-10-27 21:39 Stephen Rothwell
2019-10-28  8:39 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-24 23:31 Stephen Rothwell
2018-12-10 21:52 Stephen Rothwell
2018-12-11 10:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-12-06 22:18 Stephen Rothwell
2018-12-07 12:16 ` Will Deacon
2018-12-07 14:27   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-07-23 22:50 Stephen Rothwell
2018-07-24  9:29 ` Will Deacon
2018-01-16 22:30 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-16 22:25 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-14 21:32 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-14 21:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2018-01-11 21:23 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-12 12:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2017-10-31 20:57 Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-13  6:09 ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-13  9:15   ` Catalin Marinas
2017-11-13 10:38     ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2017-08-23 23:22 Stephen Rothwell
2017-09-04  5:59 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-21 23:34 Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-22 13:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-09-11 23:17 Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-05  1:27 Stephen Rothwell
2016-07-11  0:14 Stephen Rothwell
2016-04-28 23:59 Stephen Rothwell
2016-04-29  8:49 ` Will Deacon
2016-03-21 23:15 Stephen Rothwell
2016-03-23 11:14 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-03-06 23:48 Stephen Rothwell
2015-10-31 23:53 Stephen Rothwell
2015-11-02 10:39 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-26 23:45 Stephen Rothwell
2013-06-17  0:37 Stephen Rothwell
2012-12-05 23:17 Stephen Rothwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171019125005.GA18883@red-moon \
    --to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nwatters@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.