Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree

[Alexandre Torgue]

Hi Marc

On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> > Hi Stephen
> >
> > On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >     arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >     3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c")
> > >
> > > from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> > >
> > >     5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c")
> > >
> > > from the irqchip 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 for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion
> > is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my
> > role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule
> > (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine
> > maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I
> > will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ?
> Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define
> what you want to do?

Sorry I don't understand your reply. I just say that for series 
containing DT patches + drivers patches, to my point of view it is more 
safe that driver patches are taken by sub-system maintainer (you in this 
case) and that I take DT patches in my tree.

> In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.

> Thanks,
>
> 	M.