Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current tree

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 01:55:05PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:34:10AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:04:44 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   63cb03f5c11e ("usb: core: split usb_phy_roothub_{init,alloc}")
> > > 
> > > from the usb.current tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   bc40f5341741 ("USB: core: hcd: drop support for legacy phys")
> > > 
> > > from the usb tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (see below - though I am not sure what happens to the
> > > phy_roothub allocation when usb_phy_roothub_init fails) 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/core/hcd.c
> > > index 0a42c5df3c0f,ac5bcf449d7d..000000000000
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
> > > @@@ -2742,35 -2740,11 +2743,15 @@@ int usb_add_hcd(struct usb_hcd *hcd
> > >   	int retval;
> > >   	struct usb_device *rhdev;
> > >   
> > > - 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_PHY) && !hcd->skip_phy_initialization) {
> > > - 		struct usb_phy *phy = usb_get_phy_dev(hcd->self.sysdev, 0);
> > > - 
> > > - 		if (IS_ERR(phy)) {
> > > - 			retval = PTR_ERR(phy);
> > > - 			if (retval == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > - 				return retval;
> > > - 		} else {
> > > - 			retval = usb_phy_init(phy);
> > > - 			if (retval) {
> > > - 				usb_put_phy(phy);
> > > - 				return retval;
> > > - 			}
> > > - 			hcd->usb_phy = phy;
> > > - 			hcd->remove_phy = 1;
> > > - 		}
> > > - 	}
> > > - 
> > >   	if (!hcd->skip_phy_initialization && usb_hcd_is_primary_hcd(hcd)) {
> > >  -		hcd->phy_roothub = usb_phy_roothub_init(hcd->self.sysdev);
> > >  +		hcd->phy_roothub = usb_phy_roothub_alloc(hcd->self.sysdev);
> > > - 		if (IS_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub)) {
> > > - 			retval = PTR_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub);
> > > - 			goto err_phy_roothub_alloc;
> > > - 		}
> > > + 		if (IS_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub))
> > > + 			return PTR_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub);
> > >   
> > >  +		retval = usb_phy_roothub_init(hcd->phy_roothub);
> > >  +		if (retval)
> > > - 			goto err_phy_roothub_alloc;
> > > ++			return retval;
> > >  +
> > >   		retval = usb_phy_roothub_power_on(hcd->phy_roothub);
> > >   		if (retval)
> > >   			goto err_usb_phy_roothub_power_on;
> > 
> > This is now a conflict between the battery tree (since it merged the
> > usb tree) and Linus' tree (since it merged the usb.current tree).
> 
> Thanks for the heads up! I guess using a topic branch for the tcpm
> changes would have been the better choice :( As far as I can see
> there is not much I can do except for mentioning it to Linus when
> I send my pull request.

Sorry about that, you are right, it would have been better to do that :(

greg k-h