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

[Alexandre Torgue]

On 05/29/2018 10:39 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/05/18 09:16, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> > 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.
> And I'm happy to let you deal with these patches. I'm just asking you
> sync with Ludovic to split the series on whichever boundary you wish to
> enforce.
ok

> > > In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
> > Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.
> Well, you seem to have a strong opinion about who deals with what. I'll
> let Ludovic repost what you and him decide should go via the irqchip tree.

It's not a "strong" opinion just my point of view and maybe not the good 
one. I thought that's the way of working was like I explained. If you 
prefer 2 series (one for driver patches and another one for DT patches) 
I will be happy with that.

Ludovic, what is your opinion ?

Regards
Alexandre

> Thanks,
>
> 	M.