On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 01:55:05PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:34:10AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 13:04:44 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > drivers/usb/core/hcd.c > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 63cb03f5c11e ("usb: core: split usb_phy_roothub_{init,alloc}") > > > > > > from the usb.current tree and commit: > > > > > > bc40f5341741 ("USB: core: hcd: drop support for legacy phys") > > > > > > from the usb tree. > > > > > > I fixed it up (see below - though I am not sure what happens to the > > > phy_roothub allocation when usb_phy_roothub_init fails) 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/usb/core/hcd.c > > > index 0a42c5df3c0f,ac5bcf449d7d..000000000000 > > > --- a/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c > > > @@@ -2742,35 -2740,11 +2743,15 @@@ int usb_add_hcd(struct usb_hcd *hcd > > > int retval; > > > struct usb_device *rhdev; > > > > > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_USB_PHY) && > > > !hcd->skip_phy_initialization) { > > > - struct usb_phy *phy = usb_get_phy_dev(hcd->self.sysdev, > > > 0); > > > - > > > - if (IS_ERR(phy)) { > > > - retval = PTR_ERR(phy); > > > - if (retval == -EPROBE_DEFER) > > > - return retval; > > > - } else { > > > - retval = usb_phy_init(phy); > > > - if (retval) { > > > - usb_put_phy(phy); > > > - return retval; > > > - } > > > - hcd->usb_phy = phy; > > > - hcd->remove_phy = 1; > > > - } > > > - } > > > - > > > if (!hcd->skip_phy_initialization && > > > usb_hcd_is_primary_hcd(hcd)) { > > > - hcd->phy_roothub = > > > usb_phy_roothub_init(hcd->self.sysdev); > > > + hcd->phy_roothub = > > > usb_phy_roothub_alloc(hcd->self.sysdev); > > > - if (IS_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub)) { > > > - retval = PTR_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub); > > > - goto err_phy_roothub_alloc; > > > - } > > > + if (IS_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub)) > > > + return PTR_ERR(hcd->phy_roothub); > > > > > > + retval = usb_phy_roothub_init(hcd->phy_roothub); > > > + if (retval) > > > - goto err_phy_roothub_alloc; > > > ++ return retval; > > > + > > > retval = usb_phy_roothub_power_on(hcd->phy_roothub); > > > if (retval) > > > goto err_usb_phy_roothub_power_on; > > > > This is now a conflict between the battery tree (since it merged the > > usb tree) and Linus' tree (since it merged the usb.current tree). > > Thanks for the heads up! I guess using a topic branch for the tcpm > changes would have been the better choice :( As far as I can see > there is not much I can do except for mentioning it to Linus when > I send my pull request.
Sorry about that, you are right, it would have been better to do that :( greg k-h
