linux-next: manual merge of the amdgpu tree with the jc_docs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the amdgpu tree with the jc_docs tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the amdgpu tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/driver-api/index.rst

between commit:

  50709576d81b ("Documentation: Destage TEE subsystem documentation")

from the jc_docs tree and commit:

  2128f3cca5a2 ("Documentation/driver-api: Add document about WBRF mechanism")

from the amdgpu 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 Documentation/driver-api/index.rst
index 9511db303446,8bc4ebe7a36f..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/index.rst
@@@ -112,7 -115,7 +112,8 @@@ available subsections can be seen below
     hte/index
     wmi
     dpll
 +   tee
+    wbrf
  
  .. only::  subproject and html
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the amdgpu tree with the jc_docs tree

[Jonathan Corbet]

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the amdgpu tree got a conflict in:
>
>   Documentation/driver-api/index.rst
>
> between commit:
>
>   50709576d81b ("Documentation: Destage TEE subsystem documentation")
>
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
>
>   2128f3cca5a2 ("Documentation/driver-api: Add document about WBRF mechanism")
>
> from the amdgpu 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, both fixups in that file seem fine.

Clearly, though, we've run into the "everybody adding stuff to the end
causes a lot of conflicts" problem.  Time to impose some better
organization onto that file.

jon