Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-spear/spear13xx.c between commit c79e33b3e828 ("ARM:
smp_twd: convert to use CLKSRC_OF init") from the xilinx tree and commit
2b9c613c4ee1 ("ARM: spear: move generic.h and pl080.h into private dir")
from the arm-soc tree.
I fixed it up (just used the arm-soc tree version) and can carry the fix
as necessary (no action is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi all,
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:33:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-spear/spear13xx.c between commit c79e33b3e828 ("ARM:
> smp_twd: convert to use CLKSRC_OF init") from the xilinx tree and commit
> 2b9c613c4ee1 ("ARM: spear: move generic.h and pl080.h into private dir")
> from the arm-soc tree.
BTW, that xilinx tree commit has no "Signed-off-by" for the committer ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Michal,
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:52:34 +0200 Michal Simek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 2013/4/5 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> >
> > BTW, that xilinx tree commit has no "Signed-off-by" for the committer ...
>
> Interesting that you can't see Rob's Signed-off-by line.
Rob was the author, you were the committer ...
$ git cat-file -p c79e33b3e828c79cfedf858ef7d4df96df5fece7
tree 1e5e352eb501a2afa173989415a8b4896d4999a5
parent ab8a98cff21aedb787934e8d366c9879ad0e824c
author Rob Herring <[email protected]> 1360207067 -0600
committer Michal Simek <[email protected]> 1365060716 +0200
ARM: smp_twd: convert to use CLKSRC_OF init
Now that we have OF based init with CLKSRC_OF, convert smp_twd init
function to use it and covert all callers of
twd_local_timer_of_register.
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Cc: Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>
Cc: Russell King <[email protected]>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
Cc: Shiraz Hashim <[email protected]>
Cc: Srinidhi Kasagar <[email protected]>
Cc: John Stultz <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Reviewed-by: Stephen Warren <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On Friday 05 April 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/4/5 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-spear/spear13xx.c between commit c79e33b3e828 ("ARM:
> > smp_twd: convert to use CLKSRC_OF init") from the xilinx tree and commit
> > 2b9c613c4ee1 ("ARM: spear: move generic.h and pl080.h into private dir")
> > from the arm-soc tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (just used the arm-soc tree version) and can carry the fix
> > as necessary (no action is required).
> > <[email protected]>
>
>
> Interesting. I rebased my arm-next branch based on 3.9-rc5
> with some Rob's + one Arnd patch from arm-soc - clksrc/cleanup branch.
>
> I will fix my arm-next branch.
The for-next branch in arm-soc is not stable, you should never base
/anything/ on it. If you depend on some stable branch, that is in arm-soc,
then use just that branch, not one of the next/* branches or for-next.
Arnd
On Friday 05 April 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > Interesting. I rebased my arm-next branch based on 3.9-rc5
> > > with some Rob's + one Arnd patch from arm-soc - clksrc/cleanup branch.
> > >
> > > I will fix my arm-next branch.
> >
> > The for-next branch in arm-soc is not stable, you should never base
> > anything on it. If you depend on some stable branch, that is in arm-soc,
> > then use just that branch, not one of the next/* branches or for-next.
> >
>
> I haven't based on arm-soc for-next branch my arm-next branch.
> I just took all patches I need for zynq and done git rebase v3.5-rc5.
> Which caused that I have became commuter of that 4 patches
> and there is probably any conflict between your for-next branch and
> clksrc/cleanup
> which you have resolved in for-next branch.
Ah, I see. That was actually my fault, I'm sorry for causing trouble
here and then accusing you instead.
> And because of my rebase sha1 are different that's why Stephen
> had problem with it.
> I have changed my arm-next branch and will see on Monday if Stephen
> will report any problem or not.
Ok, thanks!
Arnd
On 04/05/2013 03:32 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 05 April 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> Interesting. I rebased my arm-next branch based on 3.9-rc5
>>>> with some Rob's + one Arnd patch from arm-soc - clksrc/cleanup branch.
>>>>
>>>> I will fix my arm-next branch.
>>>
>>> The for-next branch in arm-soc is not stable, you should never base
>>> anything on it. If you depend on some stable branch, that is in arm-soc,
>>> then use just that branch, not one of the next/* branches or for-next.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't based on arm-soc for-next branch my arm-next branch.
>> I just took all patches I need for zynq and done git rebase v3.5-rc5.
>> Which caused that I have became commuter of that 4 patches
>> and there is probably any conflict between your for-next branch and
>> clksrc/cleanup
>> which you have resolved in for-next branch.
>
> Ah, I see. That was actually my fault, I'm sorry for causing trouble
> here and then accusing you instead.
>
>> And because of my rebase sha1 are different that's why Stephen
>> had problem with it.
>> I have changed my arm-next branch and will see on Monday if Stephen
>> will report any problem or not.
>
> Ok, thanks!
No worries.
Thanks,
Michal
--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: http://www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian