Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl tree with the irqchip tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:04:19 +1100

Hi all,

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 22:32:16 +0000 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-starfive.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0d872ed9e2148 ("pinctrl: starfive: Move PM device over to irq domain")
> 
> from the irqchip tree and commit:
> 
>   64fd52a4d3ce6 ("pinctrl: starfive: Use a static name for the GPIO irq_chip")
> 
> from the pinctrl 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.
> 
> diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-starfive.c
> index 5be9866c2b3c0,0e4ff4c709f87..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-starfive.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-starfive.c
> @@@ -1307,8 -1308,8 +1308,6 @@@ static int starfive_probe(struct platfo
>   	sfp->gc.base = -1;
>   	sfp->gc.ngpio = NR_GPIOS;
>   
> - 	starfive_irq_chip.name = sfp->gc.label;
>  -	starfive_irq_chip.parent_device = dev;
> --
>   	sfp->gc.irq.chip = &starfive_irq_chip;
>   	sfp->gc.irq.parent_handler = starfive_gpio_irq_handler;
>   	sfp->gc.irq.num_parents = 1;

This is now a conflict between the irqchip tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell