[GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Heiko Stuebner]

Hi soc maintainers,

I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
commit appeared in linux-next.


Please pull.
Thanks
Heiko


The following changes since commit 73d246b4402c3356f6b3d13665de3a51eea7b555:

  arm64: dts: rockchip: remove ethm0_clk0_25m_out from Sige5 gmac0 (2025-03-15 15:49:00 +0100)

are available in the Git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mmind/linux-rockchip.git tags/v6.15-rockchip-dts64-3

for you to fetch changes up to cee24bc73d4f3f47344a1a54100a69c72f1db061:

  Revert "dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register compatible" (2025-03-19 00:22:18 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Revert of one commit that was applied accidentially and should instead
go through the MFD tree. It is already part of that tree as
commit 7f3e3e7228bb ("dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register
compatible").

----------------------------------------------------------------
Heiko Stuebner (1):
      Revert "dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register compatible"

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Rob Herring]

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Hi soc maintainers,
>
> I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
> the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
> commit appeared in linux-next.

Both commits are in v6.15-rc1 now and the revert is not, so this
should not get applied/pulled. Or you will need to revert the revert.

Rob

>
>
> Please pull.
> Thanks
> Heiko
>
>
> The following changes since commit 73d246b4402c3356f6b3d13665de3a51eea7b555:
>
>   arm64: dts: rockchip: remove ethm0_clk0_25m_out from Sige5 gmac0 (2025-03-15 15:49:00 +0100)
>
> are available in the Git repository at:
>
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mmind/linux-rockchip.git tags/v6.15-rockchip-dts64-3
>
> for you to fetch changes up to cee24bc73d4f3f47344a1a54100a69c72f1db061:
>
>   Revert "dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register compatible" (2025-03-19 00:22:18 +0100)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Revert of one commit that was applied accidentially and should instead
> go through the MFD tree. It is already part of that tree as
> commit 7f3e3e7228bb ("dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register
> compatible").
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Heiko Stuebner (1):
>       Revert "dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register compatible"
>
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
>
>
>

Re: [GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Heiko Stübner]

Hi Rob,

Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 17:56:37 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi soc maintainers,
> >
> > I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
> > the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
> > commit appeared in linux-next.
> 
> Both commits are in v6.15-rc1 now and the revert is not, so this
> should not get applied/pulled. Or you will need to revert the revert.

yes, that was the intention.

Back when I submitted this PR, I talked with Arnd on IRC the next day.

As both commits are identical sans some Signed-off-by lines, he suggested
not trying to put a revert in, but instead let git solve it itself, because

arnd on IRC:
> [...], but I worry that this would make things worse if 'git merge'
> ends up doing the revert on top of the original commit once it gets to
> torvalds. Not sure if that's still a problem in git these days, but
> I've seen it happen in the past.
> if two identical patches are in different branches, just leaving them
> there is usually easier

So this PR was already marked as "superseeded" in patchwork back
on march 20th.


Nevertheless, thanks for making sure no funky revert happens now.

Heiko


> > The following changes since commit 73d246b4402c3356f6b3d13665de3a51eea7b555:
> >
> >   arm64: dts: rockchip: remove ethm0_clk0_25m_out from Sige5 gmac0 (2025-03-15 15:49:00 +0100)
> >
> > are available in the Git repository at:
> >
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mmind/linux-rockchip.git tags/v6.15-rockchip-dts64-3
> >
> > for you to fetch changes up to cee24bc73d4f3f47344a1a54100a69c72f1db061:
> >
> >   Revert "dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register compatible" (2025-03-19 00:22:18 +0100)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Revert of one commit that was applied accidentially and should instead
> > go through the MFD tree. It is already part of that tree as
> > commit 7f3e3e7228bb ("dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register
> > compatible").
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Heiko Stuebner (1):
> >       Revert "dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Add rk3528 QoS register compatible"
> >
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml | 2 --
> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 

Re: [GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:40 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 17:56:37 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi soc maintainers,
> > >
> > > I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
> > > the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
> > > commit appeared in linux-next.
> >
> > Both commits are in v6.15-rc1 now and the revert is not, so this
> > should not get applied/pulled. Or you will need to revert the revert.
>
> yes, that was the intention.
>
> Back when I submitted this PR, I talked with Arnd on IRC the next day.
>
> As both commits are identical sans some Signed-off-by lines, he suggested
> not trying to put a revert in, but instead let git solve it itself, because
>
> arnd on IRC:
> > [...], but I worry that this would make things worse if 'git merge'
> > ends up doing the revert on top of the original commit once it gets to
> > torvalds. Not sure if that's still a problem in git these days, but
> > I've seen it happen in the past.
> > if two identical patches are in different branches, just leaving them
> > there is usually easier
>
> So this PR was already marked as "superseeded" in patchwork back
> on march 20th.
>
>
> Nevertheless, thanks for making sure no funky revert happens now.

The commit is still in linux-next though. That's how I happened upon this.

Rob

Re: [GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 18:43:54 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:40 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 17:56:37 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi soc maintainers,
> > > >
> > > > I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
> > > > the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
> > > > commit appeared in linux-next.
> > >
> > > Both commits are in v6.15-rc1 now and the revert is not, so this
> > > should not get applied/pulled. Or you will need to revert the revert.
> >
> > yes, that was the intention.
> >
> > Back when I submitted this PR, I talked with Arnd on IRC the next day.
> >
> > As both commits are identical sans some Signed-off-by lines, he suggested
> > not trying to put a revert in, but instead let git solve it itself, because
> >
> > arnd on IRC:
> > > [...], but I worry that this would make things worse if 'git merge'
> > > ends up doing the revert on top of the original commit once it gets to
> > > torvalds. Not sure if that's still a problem in git these days, but
> > > I've seen it happen in the past.
> > > if two identical patches are in different branches, just leaving them
> > > there is usually easier
> >
> > So this PR was already marked as "superseeded" in patchwork back
> > on march 20th.
> >
> >
> > Nevertheless, thanks for making sure no funky revert happens now.
> 
> The commit is still in linux-next though. That's how I happened upon this.

Ah right. I've recreated my next branch earlier today, after the -rc1
release, so this should be gone with the next linux-next.

Heiko

Re: [GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:49 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
>
> Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 18:43:54 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:40 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 17:56:37 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi soc maintainers,
> > > > >
> > > > > I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
> > > > > the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
> > > > > commit appeared in linux-next.
> > > >
> > > > Both commits are in v6.15-rc1 now and the revert is not, so this
> > > > should not get applied/pulled. Or you will need to revert the revert.
> > >
> > > yes, that was the intention.
> > >
> > > Back when I submitted this PR, I talked with Arnd on IRC the next day.
> > >
> > > As both commits are identical sans some Signed-off-by lines, he suggested
> > > not trying to put a revert in, but instead let git solve it itself, because
> > >
> > > arnd on IRC:
> > > > [...], but I worry that this would make things worse if 'git merge'
> > > > ends up doing the revert on top of the original commit once it gets to
> > > > torvalds. Not sure if that's still a problem in git these days, but
> > > > I've seen it happen in the past.
> > > > if two identical patches are in different branches, just leaving them
> > > > there is usually easier
> > >
> > > So this PR was already marked as "superseeded" in patchwork back
> > > on march 20th.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, thanks for making sure no funky revert happens now.
> >
> > The commit is still in linux-next though. That's how I happened upon this.
>
> Ah right. I've recreated my next branch earlier today, after the -rc1
> release, so this should be gone with the next linux-next.

Still there today and now we have:

['tsd,px30-cobra-ltk050h3146w', 'rockchip,px30-cobra', 'rockchip,px30']
['tsd,px30-cobra-ltk050h3146w-a2', 'rockchip,px30-cobra', 'rockchip,px30']
['tsd,px30-cobra-ltk500hd1829', 'tsd,px30-cobra', 'rockchip,px30']

Which appear on no list.

Rob

Re: [GIT PULL] Rockchip dts64 changes for 6.15 #3

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Dienstag, 8. April 2025, 16:01:21 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:49 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> >
> > Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 18:43:54 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:40 AM Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > Am Montag, 7. April 2025, 17:56:37 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Rob Herring:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi soc maintainers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I made an error and accidentially applied a patch that was meant for
> > > > > > the mfd tree. Thankfully Stephen noticed that when the duplicate
> > > > > > commit appeared in linux-next.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both commits are in v6.15-rc1 now and the revert is not, so this
> > > > > should not get applied/pulled. Or you will need to revert the revert.
> > > >
> > > > yes, that was the intention.
> > > >
> > > > Back when I submitted this PR, I talked with Arnd on IRC the next day.
> > > >
> > > > As both commits are identical sans some Signed-off-by lines, he suggested
> > > > not trying to put a revert in, but instead let git solve it itself, because
> > > >
> > > > arnd on IRC:
> > > > > [...], but I worry that this would make things worse if 'git merge'
> > > > > ends up doing the revert on top of the original commit once it gets to
> > > > > torvalds. Not sure if that's still a problem in git these days, but
> > > > > I've seen it happen in the past.
> > > > > if two identical patches are in different branches, just leaving them
> > > > > there is usually easier
> > > >
> > > > So this PR was already marked as "superseeded" in patchwork back
> > > > on march 20th.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, thanks for making sure no funky revert happens now.
> > >
> > > The commit is still in linux-next though. That's how I happened upon this.
> >
> > Ah right. I've recreated my next branch earlier today, after the -rc1
> > release, so this should be gone with the next linux-next.
> 
> Still there today and now we have:

Not much luck for me this week it seems.

So I've now re-created the for-next branch again, especially without the
stuff from below. I guess the Revert slipped in again via that miss-merged
branch.

Looking at the rec-created
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mmind/linux-rockchip.git/log/Documentation/devicetree?h=for-next

that revert should be finally gone now and not reappear.


> ['tsd,px30-cobra-ltk050h3146w', 'rockchip,px30-cobra', 'rockchip,px30']
> ['tsd,px30-cobra-ltk050h3146w-a2', 'rockchip,px30-cobra', 'rockchip,px30']
> ['tsd,px30-cobra-ltk500hd1829', 'tsd,px30-cobra', 'rockchip,px30']
> 
> Which appear on no list.

And I've also fixed my scripts to not miss-merge branches not actually
intended for next.

Heiko