On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:18 PM Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:27:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > I fixed it up (I just used the version from the tegra tree) 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. > > Olof, Arnd, > > There was a bit of back and forth on this because there happened to be a > conflict with the USB tree. I tried to clarify this as replies to the PR > request: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1254523/ > > But I suspect you may have missed those replies. The bottom line is, > there is a v2 of the pull request that has the patches that are now in > the Tegra tree. That's already part of a PR that went in through the USB > tree as a dependency to resolve the conflict. > > So as a result there should be no need for ARM SoC to carry that PR. But > if you still want to merge it, please pull v2, which is here: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git tags/tegra-for-5.7-phy-v2 > It was almost at the top of the branch, so I ended up just taking it out now, it should be gone from the soc tree by tomorrow. I think I managed to skip it as you asked on my first pass, but then failed to reread the message when I went through the remaining entries in patchwork. Clearly my tooling still needs a bit of improvement. Arnd
