Hi,


On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ludovic BARRE [off-list ref] wrote:

On 05/29/2018 10:55 AM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:

quoted

On 05/29/2018 10:39 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On 29/05/18 09:16, Alexandre Torgue wrote:

quoted

Hi Marc

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

quoted

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.

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

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