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

[Olof Johansson]

Hi,


On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/29/2018 10:55 AM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 ?
>
>
> Hi everybody
>
> For this serie, I think we could keep like that with
> Stephen fix. New stm32 irqchip will be integrated (thanks Marc)
> with no conflict with usb (thanks Stephen).
>
> For next series, we may split driver and DT to avoid misunderstanding.

The general rule that we try to use is to always merge DT through the
arm-soc tree, even if the driver gets merged through the subsystem
tree. There should be no harm in doing this for new drivers (i.e. a
new driver won't regress if the DT update is missing, it just won't
probe/configure). And that way we can keep the conflicts internal to
our tree (ideally to the SoC maintainer tree) and not cause overhead
for other maintainers and Stephen.


So yes, for the future please do not submit the DT updates with the
drivers, or at the very least be very clear when you post them that
you don't want the driver maintainer to apply them.


-Olof