Hi all,

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

  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h

between commit:

  7765ffed533d ("gpiolib: use a single SRCU struct for all GPIO descriptors")

from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:

  8a7a61032587 ("gpiolib: Get rid of never false gpio_is_valid() calls")

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/gpiolib.h
index 8e0e211ebf08,7f94580efdbc..000000000000
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
@@@ -62,8 -61,7 +62,8 @@@ struct gpio_device 
  	struct module		*owner;
  	struct gpio_chip __rcu	*chip;
  	struct gpio_desc	*descs;
 +	struct srcu_struct	desc_srcu;
- 	int			base;
+ 	unsigned int		base;
  	u16			ngpio;
  	bool			can_sleep;
  	const char		*label;

On Fri, 10 May 2024 at 07:32, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gpio-brgl tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   7765ffed533d ("gpiolib: use a single SRCU struct for all GPIO descriptors")
>
> from the gpio-brgl-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   8a7a61032587 ("gpiolib: Get rid of never false gpio_is_valid() calls")
>
> 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/gpiolib.h
> index 8e0e211ebf08,7f94580efdbc..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.h
> @@@ -62,8 -61,7 +62,8 @@@ struct gpio_device
>         struct module           *owner;
>         struct gpio_chip __rcu  *chip;
>         struct gpio_desc        *descs;
>  +      struct srcu_struct      desc_srcu;
> -       int                     base;
> +       unsigned int            base;
>         u16                     ngpio;
>         bool                    can_sleep;
>         const char              *label;

Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.

Bart

Hi Bartosz,

On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:33:37 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
> my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.

Or you could just merge your for-current branch into your for-next
branch and avoid possible issues with all the rest of v6.9 ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Hi Stephen,

On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:08:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Bartosz,
> 
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:33:37 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
> > my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.  
> 
> Or you could just merge your for-current branch into your for-next
> branch and avoid possible issues with all the rest of v6.9 ...

Or, since it is a pretty simple conflict, just do not merge and just
mention the conflict to Linus in your merge window PR.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 05:10:49PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 17:08:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:33:37 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks! I will send the fixes upstream today and then pull v6.9 into
> > > my tree before the merge window PR to fix this conflict.  
> > 
> > Or you could just merge your for-current branch into your for-next
> > branch and avoid possible issues with all the rest of v6.9 ...
> 
> Or, since it is a pretty simple conflict, just do not merge and just
> mention the conflict to Linus in your merge window PR.

I also would go the latest suggestion.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko