Hi all,

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

  drivers/edac/i10nm_base.c

between commit:

  85b08180df07 ("x86/cpu: Expose only stepping min/max interface")

from the tip tree and commit:

  2e55bb9b71e1 ("EDAC/i10nm: Add Intel Clearwater Forest server support")

from the edac tree.

I fixed it up (I think - 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/edac/i10nm_base.c
index 09bf5a3f06bf,70dff342c1b9..000000000000
--- a/drivers/edac/i10nm_base.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/i10nm_base.c
@@@ -938,17 -938,17 +938,18 @@@ static struct res_config gnr_cfg = 
  };
  
  static const struct x86_cpu_id i10nm_cpuids[] = {
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_TREMONT_D,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0x3), &i10nm_cfg0),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_TREMONT_D,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x4, 0xf), &i10nm_cfg1),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ICELAKE_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0x3), &i10nm_cfg0),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ICELAKE_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x4, 0xf), &i10nm_cfg1),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ICELAKE_D,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &i10nm_cfg1),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_SAPPHIRERAPIDS_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &spr_cfg),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_EMERALDRAPIDS_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &spr_cfg),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_GRANITERAPIDS_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &gnr_cfg),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &gnr_cfg),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &gnr_cfg),
 -	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_DARKMONT_X,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &gnr_cfg),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(INTEL_ATOM_TREMONT_D, X86_STEP_MIN,		 0x3, &i10nm_cfg0),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(INTEL_ATOM_TREMONT_D,	   0x4,	X86_STEP_MAX, &i10nm_cfg1),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(INTEL_ICELAKE_X,	  X86_STEP_MIN,		 0x3, &i10nm_cfg0),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPS(INTEL_ICELAKE_X,		   0x4, X86_STEP_MAX, &i10nm_cfg1),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM(	    INTEL_ICELAKE_D,				      &i10nm_cfg1),
 +
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_SAPPHIRERAPIDS_X, &spr_cfg),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_EMERALDRAPIDS_X,  &spr_cfg),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_GRANITERAPIDS_X,  &gnr_cfg),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT_X, &gnr_cfg),
 +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT,   &gnr_cfg),
++	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_DARKMONT_X,  &gnr_cfg),
  	{}
  };
  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(x86cpu, i10nm_cpuids);

On 12/18/24 19:06, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>  +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_SAPPHIRERAPIDS_X, &spr_cfg),
>  +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_EMERALDRAPIDS_X,  &spr_cfg),
>  +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_GRANITERAPIDS_X,  &gnr_cfg),
>  +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT_X, &gnr_cfg),
>  +	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT,   &gnr_cfg),
> ++	X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_ATOM_DARKMONT_X,  &gnr_cfg),
>   	{}
>   };

The merge looks correct to me. Thanks, Stephen!