Re: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with the mfd tree
From: Leizhen (ThunderTown)
Date: Sat Oct 10 2020 - 07:39:09 EST
On 2020/10/1 20:31, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 08:22, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>> 18394297562a ("dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Merge Samsung Exynos Sysreg bindings")
>>> 05027df1b94f ("dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: Document Exynos3 and Exynos5433 compatibles")
>>>
>>> from the mfd tree and commit:
>>>
>>> 35b096dd6353 ("dt-bindings: mfd: syscon: add some compatible strings for Hisilicon")
>>>
>>> from the devicetree 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 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml
>>> index 0f21943dea28,fc2e85004d36..000000000000
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml
>>> @@@ -40,11 -40,10 +40,14 @@@ properties
>>> - allwinner,sun50i-a64-system-controller
>>> - microchip,sparx5-cpu-syscon
>>> - mstar,msc313-pmsleep
>>> + - samsung,exynos3-sysreg
>>> + - samsung,exynos4-sysreg
>>> + - samsung,exynos5-sysreg
>>> + - samsung,exynos5433-sysreg
>>> -
>>> + - hisilicon,hi6220-sramctrl
>>> + - hisilicon,pcie-sas-subctrl
>>> + - hisilicon,peri-subctrl
>>> + - hisilicon,dsa-subctrl
>>
>> Thanks Stephen, looks good.
>>
>> Zhei,
>> However the Huawei compatibles in the original patch were added not
>> alphabetically which messes the order and increases the possibility of
>> conflicts. It would be better if the entries were kept ordered.
>
> I've fixed up the order.
Thanks.
>
> Rob
>
> .
>