linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current tree

Stephen Rothwell posted 1 patch 3 years, 7 months ago
There is a newer version of this series
linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current tree
Posted by Stephen Rothwell 3 years, 7 months ago
Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c

between commit:

  040f2dbd2010 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: Avoid duplicate requests to enable Run/Stop")

from the usb.current tree and commit:

  9711c67de748 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: Synchronize IRQ between soft connect/disconnect")

from the usb 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/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
index eca945feeec3,d6c0cb79ace3..000000000000
--- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
@@@ -2563,11 -2569,8 +2566,13 @@@ static int dwc3_gadget_pullup(struct us
  		return 0;
  	}
  
 +	if (dwc->pullups_connected == is_on) {
 +		pm_runtime_put(dwc->dev);
 +		return 0;
 +	}
 +
+ 	synchronize_irq(dwc->irq_gadget);
+ 
  	if (!is_on) {
  		ret = dwc3_gadget_soft_disconnect(dwc);
  	} else {
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the usb.current tree
Posted by Greg KH 3 years, 7 months ago
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 01:52:30PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   040f2dbd2010 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: Avoid duplicate requests to enable Run/Stop")
> 
> from the usb.current tree and commit:
> 
>   9711c67de748 ("usb: dwc3: gadget: Synchronize IRQ between soft connect/disconnect")
> 
> from the usb 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.

Now fixed up in my tree as well, thanks!

greg k-h