On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
>
> from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
>
> 6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
>
> from the pinctrl-intel 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/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,6 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se
> void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg;
> const char *pull_str = NULL;
> const char *pull = NULL;
> - unsigned long flags;
> - const char *label;
> unsigned int pin;
>
> pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number;
Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@xxxxxxxx/
Bart
