Hi all,

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

  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,usb-vbus-regulator.yaml

between commit:

  ec29a4d9b7c7 ("dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,usb-vbus-regulator: Add PM6150 compatible")

from the regulator tree and commit:

  ef6035d2f1f4 ("dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,usb-vbus-regulator: add support for PMI632")

from the usb tree.

I fixed it up (I have no idea if this is correct - 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 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,usb-vbus-regulator.yaml
index bf6336850be6,66dcd5ce03e6..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,usb-vbus-regulator.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,usb-vbus-regulator.yaml
@@@ -24,7 -24,7 +24,8 @@@ properties
            - qcom,pm8150b-vbus-reg
        - items:
            - enum:
 +              - qcom,pm6150-vbus-reg
+               - qcom,pmi632-vbus-reg
            - const: qcom,pm8150b-vbus-reg
  
    reg:

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 02:31:42PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/qcom,usb-vbus-regulator.yaml
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ec29a4d9b7c7 ("dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,usb-vbus-regulator: Add PM6150 compatible")
> 
> from the regulator tree and commit:
> 
>   ef6035d2f1f4 ("dt-bindings: regulator: qcom,usb-vbus-regulator: add support for PMI632")
> 
> from the usb tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I have no idea if this is correct - 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.

Looks correct, thanks!

greg k-h