On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 07:06, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
>
> between commit:
>
> fc363413ef8e ("gpio: vf610: set value before the direction to avoid a glitch")
>
> from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:
>
> b57587f11f81 ("gpio: vf610: simplify code by dropping data check")
>
> from the gpio-brgl 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 drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> index 656d6b1dddb5,a89ae84a1fa0..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c
> @@@ -126,9 -140,7 +140,9 @@@ static int vf610_gpio_direction_output(
> unsigned long mask = BIT(gpio);
> u32 val;
>
> + vf610_gpio_set(chip, gpio, value);
> +
> - if (port->sdata && port->sdata->have_paddr) {
> + if (port->sdata->have_paddr) {
> val = vf610_gpio_readl(port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);
> val |= mask;
> vf610_gpio_writel(val, port->gpio_base + GPIO_PDDR);
Thanks Stephen, this is correct.
My for-next tree is currently rebased on top of v6.6-rc1 while the
fixes tree tracks Linus' master.
Once the fixes are upstream, I may just rebase my for-next tree.
Bart
