From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout8-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B08C823DE; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:17:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.151 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725430669; cv=none; b=OIy0g6p9kN0ow/bLF74eOpCyl5Y0wrsNiaKe6fuTBAos+KkpsU78S6lwmQvCUfxEpapWIqwxH5EocF5hWwreyEPvms4sq3gPFHk2X+GRpHIn5unycAOSmjDwQN9XC6dWUy3QxgTwGaTe1VWKdHOVM2oHkuv8DUhMtfxBcghBAIo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725430669; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tgOkS2MnLyubjO1D0RGMYBHHNKwzgFn5mHakG26atOY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rmO6bSjjy9k1VFKy/O0YGLU+a+Fp0IeOfxKjYFGsMzD9DrB17TKXvvNPmal/5pq5djcgfDk//wIbfE4fbeAU4GodlN/d/TctC7vN421xu5a9hbIj8QDvCennwXJKFvYVGZfVuaNYyEgdz9XDjbgG9HdIkFgCpeGC0sQyd0M8Sek= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kroah.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kroah.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kroah.com header.i=@kroah.com header.b=U3CUgT/C; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=NoMVzaF+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.151 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kroah.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kroah.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kroah.com header.i=@kroah.com header.b="U3CUgT/C"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="NoMVzaF+" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7663E138010C; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:17:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 Sep 2024 02:17:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kroah.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1725430666; x=1725517066; bh=2frmxt4GEU GpO4MxS11bhFRThh3ObuT29vnXyIgorwg=; b=U3CUgT/CBWSvkZFuEG7/4Ffpdx ikNZfSyItPCi/qmJku4zfQ/hw5WT+3f9k/0a1WTdgSZdNbmjpSoA8Sl+dByDQ6Ud ygI9chGPVY9axyP2DD9lsiKChZmJj7k+3uk1xI6RHXUZ1kZjlYZo7qJlwhsU6wMD kRCtYxmQnfzhdtbZ/rSnc5kCep7/JWzGs/S7Qp05E+1B9qHEbmiX/G9IIgLt1rQ0 uF1AidJTIL3Ikl01oDUhT/wgunYw96hZfRoxJdD/rg97/1ex4zVPczei0VRphbUG f3u7gvbgLkNejfHg/BQLyJNUjIT2u3e0+vR2247kr7z5IvNGiUmnudfL55xw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1725430666; x=1725517066; bh=2frmxt4GEUGpO4MxS11bhFRThh3O buT29vnXyIgorwg=; b=NoMVzaF+eYQqpMmVs3mX2HLl7E2JgD/rPJi0zdYddEpX /031o6KcFJ6Rll2D5K9c0BGhtKfGv/SLHo0RpsDYGbLzML5/I7i4LA2jgJNMncuD ibON4GXfycIHYNZX1qxaIJtbRioDeeNtRIhxtLJR+2WNK8G41ciQb3tMj0hSWdZ7 WKyBA4C/XkzVUGriUgdpr21t9SsreGD2uVHw64PgE8peZT218O1zcTxEoEebdbRg zmj+qLf/rX7uFsohU86VrrgIcoJkt+NUe61kQsoiDVnBVd5KpGcsc2qfQgl3DaSL odnaUazUeRWwut0iQ4w3vRsgmAfErNCj/guf4mPgJg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudehiedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivg hnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddv necuhfhrohhmpefirhgvghcumffjuceoghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrdgtohhmqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeehgedvvedvleejuefgtdduudfhkeeltdeihfevjeekjeeuhfdtueef hffgheekteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehgrhgvgheskhhrohgrhhdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepkedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepshhfrhestggrnhgsrdgruhhughdrohhrghdrrghupd hrtghpthhtohephhgvihhkkhhirdhkrhhoghgvrhhusheslhhinhhugidrihhnthgvlhdr tghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhigqdhkvghrnhgvlhesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlh drohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhigqdhnvgigthesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdr ohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i787e41f1:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:16:10 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Stephen Rothwell , Heikki Krogerus Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current tree Message-ID: <2024090439-hexagon-imply-db4e@gregkh> References: <20240904150522.0410150f@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240904150522.0410150f@canb.auug.org.au> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 03:05:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c > > between commit: > > 87eb3cb4ec61 ("usb: typec: ucsi: Fix cable registration") > > from the usb.current tree and commit: > > 73910c511b1a ("usb: typec: ucsi: Only assign the identity structure if the PPM supports it") > > from the usb 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. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > diff --cc drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c > index 17155ed17fdf,f0b5867048e2..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c > @@@ -993,11 -929,12 +939,12 @@@ static int ucsi_register_cable(struct u > break; > } > > - desc.identity = &con->cable_identity; > + if (con->ucsi->cap.features & UCSI_CAP_GET_PD_MESSAGE) > + desc.identity = &con->cable_identity; > - desc.active = !!(UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_ACTIVE_CABLE & > - con->cable_prop.flags); > - desc.pd_revision = UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD( > - con->cable_prop.flags); > + desc.active = !!(UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_ACTIVE_CABLE & cable_prop.flags); > + > + if (con->ucsi->version >= UCSI_VERSION_2_1) > + desc.pd_revision = UCSI_CABLE_PROP_FLAG_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD(cable_prop.flags); > > cable = typec_register_cable(con->port, &desc); > if (IS_ERR(cable)) { > @@@ -1094,8 -1009,10 +1041,9 @@@ static int ucsi_register_partner(struc > if (pwr_opmode == UCSI_CONSTAT_PWR_OPMODE_PD) > ucsi_register_device_pdos(con); > > - desc.identity = &con->partner_identity; > + if (con->ucsi->cap.features & UCSI_CAP_GET_PD_MESSAGE) > + desc.identity = &con->partner_identity; > desc.usb_pd = pwr_opmode == UCSI_CONSTAT_PWR_OPMODE_PD; > - desc.pd_revision = UCSI_CONCAP_FLAG_PARTNER_PD_MAJOR_REV_AS_BCD(con->cap.flags); > > partner = typec_register_partner(con->port, &desc); > if (IS_ERR(partner)) { Heikki, does this resolution look correct? I knew there would be a conflict, just want to make sure we get it right. thanks greg k-h