2015-11-01 14:16:28

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl tree with the at91 tree

Hi Linus,

Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl tree got a conflict in:

arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi

between commit:

512fc048e4fd ("ARM: at91/dt: sama5d2: add missing devices")

from the at91 tree and commit:

f6c804b08ca5 ("ARM: at91/dt: sama5d2: add pio controller node")

from the pinctrl tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi
index c1f0cba40289,cc05cde0f9a4..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi
@@@ -1054,21 -922,19 +1054,35 @@@
status = "disabled";
};

+ tdes@fc044000 {
+ compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g46-tdes";
+ reg = <0xfc044000 0x100>;
+ interrupts = <11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
+ dmas = <&dma0
+ (AT91_XDMAC_DT_MEM_IF(0) | AT91_XDMAC_DT_PER_IF(1) |
+ AT91_XDMAC_DT_PERID(28))>,
+ <&dma0
+ (AT91_XDMAC_DT_MEM_IF(0) | AT91_XDMAC_DT_PER_IF(1) |
+ AT91_XDMAC_DT_PERID(29))>;
+ dma-names = "tx", "rx";
+ clocks = <&tdes_clk>;
+ clock-names = "tdes_clk";
+ status = "okay";
+ };
++
+ pioA: pinctrl@fc038000 {
+ compatible = "atmel,sama5d2-pinctrl";
+ reg = <0xfc038000 0x600>;
+ interrupts = <18 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 7>,
+ <68 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 7>,
+ <69 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 7>,
+ <70 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 7>;
+ interrupt-controller;
+ #interrupt-cells = <2>;
+ gpio-controller;
+ #gpio-cells = <2>;
+ clocks = <&pioA_clk>;
+ };
};
};
};

2015-11-02 09:06:51

by Nicolas Ferre

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl tree with the at91 tree

Le 01/11/2015 15:16, Stephen Rothwell a ?crit :
> Hi Linus,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi
>
> between commit:
>
> 512fc048e4fd ("ARM: at91/dt: sama5d2: add missing devices")
>
> from the at91 tree and commit:
>
> f6c804b08ca5 ("ARM: at91/dt: sama5d2: add pio controller node")
>
> from the pinctrl tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).

Hi Stephen,

The fix is good: thanks. (We tend to sort DT nodes by address which
would have given the pinctrl node before the tdes one but that not a big
deal: we still can correct this later with a trivial patch).

Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre