Hi Arnd,
On 23/01/2023 10:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023, at 00:09, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb-next tree got conflicts in:
>>
>> drivers/staging/media/Kconfig
>> drivers/staging/media/Makefile
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 582603a95734 ("staging: media: remove davinci vpfe_capture driver")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>> d2a8e92f0b41 ("media: vpfe_capture: remove deprecated davinci drivers")
>>
>> from the v4l-dvb-next tree.
>>
>> These 2 commits removed the same driver but caused a conflict due to
>> other changes to these files.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version of these files) 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.
>
> I can drop my copy of the patch, but from the diffstat I see that
> there are a few other differences: Hans' version removes
> include/media/davinci/ccdc_types.h, which I forgot, while my
> version drops include/media/davinci/vpfe_capture.h (which
> is still included in the v4l-dvb-next tree, but not in mine)
> as well as the obsolete driver specific entries in MAINTAINERS
> and Documentation/userspace-api/ioctl/ioctl-number.rst.
>
> Hans, any idea what we should do? I'd tend to leave both
> patches where they are and let Linus figure out the merge.
> If I drop mine we need a follow-up patch to remove
> the include/media/davinci/vpfe_capture.h header, while
> dropping yours would likely produce the same conflicts
> against your tm6000/zr364xx removal patches.
I'd say, leave it to Linus. If anything remains of the davinci code
after Linus is done with it, then you and/or I can make follow-up patches.
Regards,
Hans
