On 11/01/2023 05:30, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 14/12/2022 16:29, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-14 16:06:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Allow qcom,board-id and qcom,msm-id leagcy properties on these older
>>>> platforms: MSM8956, SDM636 and SM4250. Also mention more OnePlus
>>>> devices using modified qcom,board-id field.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 5 +++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> index d45e2129fce3..cfb7f5caf606 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml
>>>> @@ -925,15 +925,18 @@ allOf:
>>>> - qcom,apq8026
>>>> - qcom,apq8094
>>>> - qcom,apq8096
>>>> + - qcom,msm8956
>>>
>>> I am certain this (and msm8976) were added in [1] but it somehow got
>>> lost when that was merged as 05c0c38dc752 ("dt-bindings: arm: qcom:
>>> Document msm8956 and msm8976 SoC and devices")?
>>>
>>> Should we also add qcom,msm8976 or only when a user for that board is
>>> added?
>>
>> Bjorn,
>> You need to fix your scripts. It's not the first time when applied patch
>> is changed and its pieces are gone.
>>
>
> I don't have any script that automagically solves merge conflicts, so if
> you prefer to avoid the occasional mistake I can start reject your
> patches as soon as they don't apply 100% cleanly.
I vote for this (unless for really trivial cases). The submitter should
know better how to resolve the conflict (through rebase) than you.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
