From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 08:47:00 +0100 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree In-Reply-To: <1bedc0b7-21f9-1e15-a11c-3de06e81b5ba@st.com> References: <20180529155257.5ae48830@canb.auug.org.au> <1bedc0b7-21f9-1e15-a11c-3de06e81b5ba@st.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote: > Hi Stephen > > On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi >> >> between commit: >> >> 3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c") >> >> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >> >> 5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c") >> >> from the irqchip 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. >> > > Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion > is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my > role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule > (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine > maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I > will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ? Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define what you want to do? In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...