On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 09:15:08AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 05:09:53PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 07:57:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 37f6b42e9c29 ("ACPI/IORT: Fix PCI ACS enablement")
> > >
> > > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > >
> > > 896dd2c32484 ("ACPI/IORT: Make platform devices initialization code SMMU agnostic")
> > >
> > > from the arm64 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.
> [...]
> > > diff --cc drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > > index de56394dd161,7dc964f4d8f1..000000000000
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
> > > @@@ -1215,7 -1326,7 +1357,8 @@@ static void __init iort_init_platform_d
> > > struct acpi_table_iort *iort;
> > > struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > > int i, ret;
> > > + bool acs_enabled = false;
> > > + const struct iort_dev_config *ops;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * iort_table and iort both point to the start of IORT table, but
> > > @@@ -1235,12 -1346,8 +1378,11 @@@
> > > return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (!acs_enabled)
> > > + acs_enabled = iort_enable_acs(iort_node);
> > > +
> > > - if ((iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU) ||
> > > - (iort_node->type == ACPI_IORT_NODE_SMMU_V3)) {
> > > -
> > > + ops = iort_get_dev_cfg(iort_node);
> > > + if (ops) {
> > > fwnode = acpi_alloc_fwnode_static();
> > > if (!fwnode)
> > > return;
> >
> > Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.
>
> Thanks for the reminder. Will (cc'ed) is handling this merging window
> and AFAIK the pull request will go with this conflict unsolved (to avoid
> a back merge from a newer Linus tree commit).
Indeed, that's the planned course of action, thanks for the heads-up.
Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
