Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the spacemit tree

[Yixun Lan <dlan@gentoo.org>]

Hi Mark,

On 20:30 Wed 17 Sep     , Yixun Lan wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 13:03 Wed 17 Sep     , Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 07:48:34PM +0800, Vivian Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > Just FYI, Yixun has proposed for net-next to back out of the DTS changes
> > > and taking them up through the spacemit tree instead [1], resolving the
> > > conflicts in the spacemit tree. This would certainly mean less headaches
> > > while managing pull requests, as well as allowing Yixun to take care of
> > > code style concerns like node order. However, I do not know what the
> > > norms here are.
> > 
> > Thanks.  They're pretty trivial conflicts so I'm not sure it's critical,
> > though like you say node order might easily end up the wrong way round
> > depending on how the conflict resolution gets done.
> 
> Thanks for the help and fixing this, but ..
> 
> If it's possible to revert the DT patch 3-5, then I'd be happy to take,
> but if this is too much job, e.g. the net-next's main branch is imuutable
> and reverting it will cause too much trouble, then I'm fine with current
> solution - carry the fix via net-next tree..
> 
> But please use commit: 0f084b221e2c5ba16eca85b3d2497f9486bd0329 of
> https://github.com/spacemit-com/linux/tree/k1/dt-for-next as the merge
> parent, which I'm about to send to Arnd (the SoC tree)
> 
No matter which way choose to go, I've created an immutable tag here,

https://github.com/spacemit-com/linux/ spacemit-dt-for-6.18-1

> BTW, The 'for-next' branch is a merged branch contains clock and DT patches
> for SpacemiT SoC tree's which isn't immutable..
> 
> Let me know what I should proceed, thank you
> 

-- 
Yixun Lan (dlan)