Hi Stefano, On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:50:22 +0100 Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce > > > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip: > > > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the > > > arm-soc tree. > > > > > > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following > > > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). > > > > > > From: Stephen Rothwell > > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000 > > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU > > > notifier > > > > > > due to code movement. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > > > --- > > > arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 ------- > > > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c > > > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c > > > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@ > > > */ > > > > > > #include > > > -#include > > > #include > > > #include > > > > > > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, > > > return -ENODEV; > > > } > > > > > > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu) > > > -{ > > > - gic_secondary_init(0); > > > -} > > > - > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > > > void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu) > > > { > > > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void) > > > } > > > > > > struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = { > > > - .smp_secondary_init = psci_secondary_init, > > > .smp_boot_secondary = psci_boot_secondary, > > > .cpu_die = psci_cpu_die, > > > }; > > > > The fix looks fine. Thanks. > > Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree. You should not apply that to your tree as you don't have the rest of the change from the arm-soc tree. It needs to be applied to the merge of the two trees i.e. when Linus merges the last of the two trees. This is why I wrote "no action is required". And you committed it to your tree without your Signed-off-by ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au