linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c

between commit:

  c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")

from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:

  6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")

from the pinctrl-intel 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/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
@@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,6 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se
  		void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg;
  		const char *pull_str = NULL;
  		const char *pull = NULL;
- 		unsigned long flags;
 -		const char *label;
  		unsigned int pin;
  
  		pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number;

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
>
> from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
>
>   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
>
> from the pinctrl-intel 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/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,6 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se
>                 void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg;
>                 const char *pull_str = NULL;
>                 const char *pull = NULL;
> -               unsigned long flags;
>  -              const char *label;
>                 unsigned int pin;
>
>                 pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number;

Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/

Bart

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

[Andy Shevchenko]

+Cc: Linus W.

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
> >
> > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
> >
> >   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
> >
> > from the pinctrl-intel tree.

...

> Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/

I can do it, but why?

Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this
particular one will be solved by Linus W.

Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> +Cc: Linus W.
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
> > >
> > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
> > >
> > >   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
> > >
> > > from the pinctrl-intel tree.
>
> ...
>
> > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/
>
> I can do it, but why?
>

You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable
branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch.
:)

Bartosz

> Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this
> particular one will be solved by Linus W.
>
> Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > >   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> > > >
> > > > between commit:
> > > >
> > > >   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
> > > >
> > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
> > > >
> > > >   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
> > > >
> > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree.

...

> > > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/
> >
> > I can do it, but why?
> 
> You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable
> branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch.
> :)

True with the caveat like (citing by memory): "I see no conflicts with
the code that needs this PR to be pulled, but just in case."

So, thank you for PR, but there is nothing pending in my tree that requires
this PR to be pulled.

So, when I send the PR to Linus W. (presumably end of this week) it will be
solved on his level, I believe.

> > Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this
> > particular one will be solved by Linus W.
> >
> > Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl tree

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 04:48:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > > > >
> > > > >   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> > > > >
> > > > > between commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
> > > > >
> > > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
> > > > >
> > > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree.

...

> > > > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/
> > >
> > > I can do it, but why?
> > 
> > You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable
> > branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch.
> > :)
> 
> True with the caveat like (citing by memory): "I see no conflicts with
> the code that needs this PR to be pulled, but just in case."
> 
> So, thank you for PR, but there is nothing pending in my tree that requires
> this PR to be pulled.
> 
> So, when I send the PR to Linus W. (presumably end of this week) it will be
> solved on his level, I believe.

Btw, Torvalds states that 1) conflicts are okay and even good to have
(shows that you don't sneak the last-minute modified code into the PR)
and 2) the any merge should be justified (like real dependency), the
conflict is not a dependency. Maybe that's what was unclear when I asked
you for PR...

> > > Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this
> > > particular one will be solved by Linus W.
> > >
> > > Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko