Hi all,

On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:43:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the iio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   901f84de0e16 ("iio: core: fix ioctl handlers removal")
> 
> from the staging.current tree and commit:
> 
>   919a6adf8107 ("iio: core: move @chrdev from struct iio_dev to struct iio_dev_opaque")
> 
> from the iio 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/iio/industrialio-core.c
> index 59efb36db2c7,efb4cf91c9e4..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-core.c
> @@@ -1785,10 -1811,10 +1810,10 @@@ static long iio_ioctl(struct file *filp
>   	}
>   
>   	if (ret == IIO_IOCTL_UNHANDLED)
>  -		ret = -EINVAL;
>  +		ret = -ENODEV;
>   
>   out_unlock:
> - 	mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->info_exist_lock);
> + 	mutex_unlock(&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock);
>   
>   	return ret;
>   }
> @@@ -1925,9 -1951,12 +1950,9 @@@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__iio_device_register)
>    **/
>   void iio_device_unregister(struct iio_dev *indio_dev)
>   {
> - 	cdev_device_del(&indio_dev->chrdev, &indio_dev->dev);
>  -	struct iio_dev_opaque *iio_dev_opaque = to_iio_dev_opaque(indio_dev);
>  -	struct iio_ioctl_handler *h, *t;
>  -
> + 	cdev_device_del(&iio_dev_opaque->chrdev, &indio_dev->dev);
>   
> - 	mutex_lock(&indio_dev->info_exist_lock);
> + 	mutex_lock(&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock);
>   
>   	iio_device_unregister_debugfs(indio_dev);
>   

Actually, I had to add back the iio_dev_opaque declaration line.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell