Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb-next tree with the arm-soc tree

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 00:09, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb-next tree got conflicts in:
>
>   drivers/staging/media/Kconfig
>   drivers/staging/media/Makefile
>
> between commit:
>
>   582603a95734 ("staging: media: remove davinci vpfe_capture driver")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
>   d2a8e92f0b41 ("media: vpfe_capture: remove deprecated davinci drivers")
>
> from the v4l-dvb-next tree.
>
> These 2 commits removed the same driver but caused a conflict due to
> other changes to these files.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version of these files) 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.

I can drop my copy of the patch, but from the diffstat I see that
there are a few other differences: Hans' version removes
include/media/davinci/ccdc_types.h, which I forgot, while my
version drops include/media/davinci/vpfe_capture.h (which
is still included in the v4l-dvb-next tree, but not in mine)
as well as the obsolete driver specific entries in MAINTAINERS
and Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst.

Hans, any idea what we should do? I'd tend to leave both
patches where they are and let Linus figure out the merge.
If I drop mine we need a follow-up patch to remove
the include/media/davinci/vpfe_capture.h header, while
dropping yours would likely produce the same conflicts
against your tm6000/zr364xx removal patches.

     Arnd