Hi all,

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

  drivers/base/regmap/regmap-i3c.c

between commit:

  79c3ae7ada05 ("regmap: i3c: switch to use i3c_xfer from i3c_priv_xfer")

from the i3c tree and commit:

  af9c8092d842 ("regmap: i3c: Use ARRAY_SIZE()")

from the regmap 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/base/regmap/regmap-i3c.c
index 4482e64f26eb,6a0f6c826980..000000000000
--- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap-i3c.c
+++ b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap-i3c.c
@@@ -18,7 -19,7 +19,7 @@@ static int regmap_i3c_write(void *conte
  		},
  	};
  
- 	return i3c_device_do_xfers(i3c, xfers, 1, I3C_SDR);
 -	return i3c_device_do_priv_xfers(i3c, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers));
++	return i3c_device_do_xfers(i3c, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers), I3C_SDR);
  }
  
  static int regmap_i3c_read(void *context,
@@@ -37,7 -38,7 +38,7 @@@
  	xfers[1].len = val_size;
  	xfers[1].data.in = val;
  
- 	return i3c_device_do_xfers(i3c, xfers, 2, I3C_SDR);
 -	return i3c_device_do_priv_xfers(i3c, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers));
++	return i3c_device_do_xfers(i3c, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers), I3C_SDR);
  }
  
  static const struct regmap_bus regmap_i3c = {

On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 01:32:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the regmap tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/base/regmap/regmap-i3c.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   79c3ae7ada05 ("regmap: i3c: switch to use i3c_xfer from i3c_priv_xfer")
> 
> from the i3c tree and commit:
> 
>   af9c8092d842 ("regmap: i3c: Use ARRAY_SIZE()")
> 
> from the regmap 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.

LGTM, thanks!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko