Hi all,

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

  arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c

between commit:

  62e106c802c5 ("net: fs_enet: Remove stale prototypes from fsl_soc.c")

from the net-next tree and commit:

  80a8f487b9ba ("serial: cpm_uart: Remove stale prototype in powerpc/fsl_soc.c")

from the tty 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 arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c
index 528506f6e2b8,99fc4c3b94fa..000000000000
--- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c
@@@ -22,7 -22,8 +22,6 @@@
  #include <linux/phy.h>
  #include <linux/spi/spi.h>
  #include <linux/fsl_devices.h>
- #include <linux/fs_uart_pd.h>
 -#include <linux/fs_enet_pd.h>
  #include <linux/reboot.h>
  
  #include <linux/atomic.h>
@@@ -35,7 -36,8 +34,6 @@@
  #include <asm/cpm2.h>
  #include <asm/fsl_hcalls.h>	/* For the Freescale hypervisor */
  
- extern void init_smc_ioports(struct fs_uart_platform_info*);
 -extern void init_fcc_ioports(struct fs_platform_info*);
 -extern void init_fec_ioports(struct fs_platform_info*);
  static phys_addr_t immrbase = -1;
  
  phys_addr_t get_immrbase(void)

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 01:37:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tty tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   62e106c802c5 ("net: fs_enet: Remove stale prototypes from fsl_soc.c")
> 
> from the net-next tree and commit:
> 
>   80a8f487b9ba ("serial: cpm_uart: Remove stale prototype in powerpc/fsl_soc.c")
> 
> from the tty 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.

Fix looks good to me, thanks!

greg k-h