From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.17]) (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 5180D1CF5C5; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725438940; cv=none; b=r++IXd4CoeTl/AITXi/tWOavmB0C7LmX8CzC0vbi22TNts3MkgwSJVhr8x7VIkQqx4ho6AAYLJqCL/h0Felfn9qBGUYjfKFzCjpJp3qYEE4Sai4O7J8W32kexw0iZyRSpY3/Ko6Pzmy4dKHF6t/IWr1mpihNFOE5CFrN9lOoZFc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725438940; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QL0QAEIxnsgU5BRclA2zcvFfRGe31nTeeoCG8FH1DYc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dYKd/m9CJqFnmMA5uyGtIwu6WXW/kXWxSDRVzuqu+5hvNduMGHd0eRstn0JsgrBQ1WASqrIfNqmbyRKXDeQM2dl1EpK0G/PLIKhYQEVixL8cnPGt1QtQFA9lXy3Zxc4EApA08lMgR5SHsM91BXHomBHINetLmKOPXmQ1ujOloSI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=MyGWI456; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="MyGWI456" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1725438938; x=1756974938; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=QL0QAEIxnsgU5BRclA2zcvFfRGe31nTeeoCG8FH1DYc=; b=MyGWI456MHe0viEev5q7e6oj6B1KLAkZvhGXBSuA5M7ykHCvHbNek676 GKG4X2I9IlPqlR6qb79VfxKHET+U8hhd+U3Y568co1WYNW3RByU4xWUL+ qM4sXzoWiWitNrjROINCPQo1KU9k5ev9LjcOH8IfdJWxuXbepeXP5ReTv KlPRlIEBSae40eWsV8liouMaaPzSTd1wFPuSrq2tdYSSJtwwRR2S3NATb FAnPU0HCw8QV72WZaN9cavsBeKj15xkVVo5DqWekMsTSaKov2fHFP3sbp vDtM1FV6q4B0a9IGKa39Ji3x03aMG34mUCN3blggsRlVDiT4rkOw76iIe g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: IpoYqzPMSOmxlT0WdK2B4w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: f5EFhZdNQpSmgfAGkC0yXw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11184"; a="24244687" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,201,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="24244687" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by orvoesa109.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Sep 2024 01:35:38 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1Ux7KoU6Tb2vyQ3rD+dinQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: CcU2H083QzSP+cWqsMAI/A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,201,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="69989847" Received: from kuha.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.185]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 04 Sep 2024 01:35:35 -0700 Received: by kuha.fi.intel.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 04 Sep 2024 11:35:34 +0300 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:35:34 +0300 From: Heikki Krogerus To: Greg KH Cc: Stephen Rothwell , 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: References: <20240904150522.0410150f@canb.auug.org.au> <2024090439-hexagon-imply-db4e@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: <2024090439-hexagon-imply-db4e@gregkh> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:16:10AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > 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. It's correct. thanks, -- heikki