linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got conflicts in:
drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
drivers/irqchip/Makefile
between commit:
76cde2639411 ("irqchip/apple-aic: Add support for the Apple Interrupt
Controller")
from the arm-soc tree and commits:
fead4dd49663 ("irqchip: Add driver for WPCM450 interrupt controller")
94bc94209a66 ("irqchip/wpcm450: Drop COMPILE_TEST")
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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
index d3a14f304ec8,715eb4366e35..
--- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
@@@ -577,12 -577,10 +577,18 @@@ config MST_IR
help
Support MStar Interrupt Controller.
+config APPLE_AIC
+ bool "Apple Interrupt Controller (AIC)"
+ depends on ARM64
+ default ARCH_APPLE
+ help
+Support for the Apple Interrupt Controller found on Apple Silicon
SoCs,
+such as the M1.
+
+ config WPCM450_AIC
+ bool "Nuvoton WPCM450 Advanced Interrupt Controller"
+ depends on ARCH_WPCM450
+ help
+ Support for the interrupt controller in the Nuvoton WPCM450 BMC SoC.
+
endmenu
diff --cc drivers/irqchip/Makefile
index eb6a515f0f64,bef57937e729..
--- a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
@@@ -113,4 -113,4 +113,5 @@@ obj-$(CONFIG_LOONGSON_PCH_MSI) += irq-
obj-$(CONFIG_MST_IRQ) += irq-mst-intc.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SL28CPLD_INTC) += irq-sl28cpld.o
obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_REALTEK_RTL)+= irq-realtek-rtl.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_APPLE_AIC) += irq-apple-aic.o
+ obj-$(CONFIG_WPCM450_AIC) += irq-wpcm450-aic.o
pgpAMbGlwpkkf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ludovic BARRE 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
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi,
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ludovic BARRE 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
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
BR
Ludo
Regards
Alexandre
Thanks,
M.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
BR
Ludo
Regards
Alexandre
Thanks,
M.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
>> 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.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
>> 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.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.
Thanks,
M.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.
Thanks,
M.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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?
In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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?
In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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 ?
Regards
Alex
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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 ?
Regards
Alex
linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
index b66f673b5038,4fa0df853c8a..
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
@@@ -777,26 -183,13 +777,33 @@@
status = "disabled";
};
+ usbphyc: usbphyc@5a006000 {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+ compatible = "st,stm32mp1-usbphyc";
+ reg = <0x5a006000 0x1000>;
+ clocks = < USBPHY_K>;
+ resets = < USBPHY_R>;
+ status = "disabled";
+
+ usbphyc_port0: usb-phy@0 {
+ #phy-cells = <0>;
+ reg = <0>;
+ };
+
+ usbphyc_port1: usb-phy@1 {
+ #phy-cells = <1>;
+ reg = <1>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ exti: interrupt-controller@5000d000 {
+ compatible = "st,stm32mp1-exti", "syscon";
+ interrupt-controller;
+ #interrupt-cells = <2>;
+ reg = <0x5000d000 0x400>;
+ };
+
usart1: serial@5c00 {
compatible = "st,stm32h7-uart";
reg = <0x5c00 0x400>;
pgpwFKklK9QPx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
index b66f673b5038,4fa0df853c8a..
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
@@@ -777,26 -183,13 +777,33 @@@
status = "disabled";
};
+ usbphyc: usbphyc@5a006000 {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+ compatible = "st,stm32mp1-usbphyc";
+ reg = <0x5a006000 0x1000>;
+ clocks = < USBPHY_K>;
+ resets = < USBPHY_R>;
+ status = "disabled";
+
+ usbphyc_port0: usb-phy@0 {
+ #phy-cells = <0>;
+ reg = <0>;
+ };
+
+ usbphyc_port1: usb-phy@1 {
+ #phy-cells = <1>;
+ reg = <1>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ exti: interrupt-controller@5000d000 {
+ compatible = "st,stm32mp1-exti", "syscon";
+ interrupt-controller;
+ #interrupt-cells = <2>;
+ reg = <0x5000d000 0x400>;
+ };
+
usart1: serial@5c00 {
compatible = "st,stm32h7-uart";
reg = <0x5c00 0x400>;
pgpwFKklK9QPx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Jason,
Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt between commit
f80b71397d09 ("ARM: brcmstb: gic: add compatible string for Broadcom
Brahma15") from the arm-soc tree and commit 3e44358c12cc ("") from the
irqchip tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
index c7d2fa156678,d2eea0b75580..
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt
@@@ -16,8 -17,9 +17,10 @@@ Main node required properties
"arm,cortex-a9-gic"
"arm,cortex-a7-gic"
"arm,arm11mp-gic"
+ "brcm,brahma-b15-gic"
+
- interrupt-controller : Identifies the node as an interrupt controller
+
- #interrupt-cells : Specifies the number of cells needed to encode an
interrupt source. The type shall be a and the value shall be 3.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Jason, Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt between commit f80b71397d09 (ARM: brcmstb: gic: add compatible string for Broadcom Brahma15) from the arm-soc tree and commit 3e44358c12cc () from the irqchip tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au diff --cc Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt index c7d2fa156678,d2eea0b75580.. --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/gic.txt @@@ -16,8 -17,9 +17,10 @@@ Main node required properties arm,cortex-a9-gic arm,cortex-a7-gic arm,arm11mp-gic + brcm,brahma-b15-gic + - interrupt-controller : Identifies the node as an interrupt controller + - #interrupt-cells : Specifies the number of cells needed to encode an interrupt source. The type shall be a u32 and the value shall be 3. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
