Hi Marc

On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote:

quoted

Hi Stephen

On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

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.