On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 01:03:34PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:54:15AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi between commit 7cb2e629a240 ("ARM:
AT91: Add ADC driver to the at91sam9g20 dtsi") from the staging tree and
commit 5b6089cb6f28 ("ARM: at91: add at91sam9260 DT support") from the
arm-soc tree.

So, I didn't know what to do with this, so I used the arm-soc version of
this file (effectively throwing away the staging tree change).  Hints,
anyone?

I suspect the addition of the adc node should just go into the
at91sam9260.dtsi file.

So does that mean that the staging tree version is correct?  Or that
someone needs to send me a fixup patch here?

The staging tree version adds contents to at91sam9g20.dtsi, and the context
gets moved to at91sam9260.dtsi in arm-soc. If we want to resolve it now,
I think the best way is to add the change to at91sam9260.dtsi in arm-soc
and let you drop that part in staging. There are no hard dependencies
since this is new code and it the driver is still correct without the
change, it simply won't find the device.

Ok, so if we leave it as-is for now, we can resolve it after 3.5-rc1 is
out and we see what branch ended up "winning"?  :)

greg k-h