From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:31:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1721375.qoxY63CZOC@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <20170421105405.6a690b35@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:49361 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162784AbdDUVhk (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:37:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , ARM , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Gerlach , Santosh Shilimkar , Nishanth Menon On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 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. OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry. I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch. Thanks, Rafael