Hi Stephen,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:15:19AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the at91 tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ba5e60c9b75d ("arm/mach-at91/pm : fix possible object reference leak")
>
> from the at91-fixes tree and commit:
>
> c3f5b8fde71f ("ARM: at91: pm: introduce at91_soc_pm structure")
>
> from the at91 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> index 2a757dcaa1a5,5571658b3c46..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> @@@ -620,10 -676,8 +676,10 @@@ static int __init at91_pm_backup_init(v
> return 0;
>
> securam_fail:
> + put_device(&pdev->dev);
> +securam_fail_no_ref_dev:
> - iounmap(pm_data.sfrbu);
> - pm_data.sfrbu = NULL;
> + iounmap(soc_pm.data.sfrbu);
> + soc_pm.data.sfrbu = NULL;
> return ret;
> }
>
Resolution sounds good.
Thanks
Ludovic
