Hi all,

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

  include/linux/leds.h

between commit:

  6b0d3355e5a5 ("leds: class: Add flag to avoid automatic renaming of LED devices")

from the leds-lj tree and commit:

  5607ca92e627 ("leds: core: Add led_mc_set_brightness() function")

from the battery tree.

I assume that the bit number valuse don;t actually matter, right?

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 include/linux/leds.h
index 99f87587a132,517b6198df07..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/leds.h
+++ b/include/linux/leds.h
@@@ -107,7 -107,7 +107,8 @@@ struct led_classdev 
  #define LED_BRIGHT_HW_CHANGED	BIT(21)
  #define LED_RETAIN_AT_SHUTDOWN	BIT(22)
  #define LED_INIT_DEFAULT_TRIGGER BIT(23)
 -#define LED_MULTI_COLOR		BIT(24)
 +#define LED_REJECT_NAME_CONFLICT BIT(24)
++#define LED_MULTI_COLOR		BIT(25)
  
  	/* set_brightness_work / blink_timer flags, atomic, private. */
  	unsigned long		work_flags;

Hi Stephen,

On 7/9/24 5:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the battery tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/leds.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6b0d3355e5a5 ("leds: class: Add flag to avoid automatic renaming of LED devices")
> 
> from the leds-lj tree and commit:
> 
>   5607ca92e627 ("leds: core: Add led_mc_set_brightness() function")
> 
> from the battery tree.
> 
> I assume that the bit number valuse don;t actually matter, right?

Correct, which bit is used for which flag does not matter.

> 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.

Thank you.

Regards,

Hans

Hi all,

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:34:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the battery tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/leds.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6b0d3355e5a5 ("leds: class: Add flag to avoid automatic renaming of LED devices")

This is also in the mfd tree.

> from the leds-lj tree and commit:
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

On Tue, 09 Jul 2024, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:34:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the battery tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   include/linux/leds.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   6b0d3355e5a5 ("leds: class: Add flag to avoid automatic renaming of LED devices")
> 
> This is also in the mfd tree.

That's intentional.  It's a shared branch.

Same commit ID, right?

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Hi Lee,

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:23:37 +0100 Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2024, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:34:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:  
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the battery tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   include/linux/leds.h
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   6b0d3355e5a5 ("leds: class: Add flag to avoid automatic renaming of LED devices")  
> > 
> > This is also in the mfd tree.  
> 
> That's intentional.  It's a shared branch.
> 
> Same commit ID, right?

Yeah, not a problem, I was just noting for completeness.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell