Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932653AbcCHQGW (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:06:22 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34572 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752904AbcCHQGN (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:06:13 -0500 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Przywara?= , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20160307150402.191ba735@canb.auug.org.au> <56DEF546.9090900@arm.com> Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Wim Van Sebroeck , Sudeep Holla , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fu Wei , Guenter Roeck From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <56DEF871.8050102@arm.com> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:06:09 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56DEF546.9090900@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1153 Lines: 39 Hi Andre, On 08/03/16 15:52, Andr? Przywara wrote: > On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Wim, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts >> >> between commit: >> >> d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately") >> >> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >> >> fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts") >> >> from the watchdog tree. >> >> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action >> is required). > > But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node > belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the > GICv2-only .dts. > So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of > the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the > .dtsi file? > If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the > breakage is not really critical). > I have rebased it on top of my earlier PR and sending it shortly. I have moved it to dtsi file. -- Regards, Sudeep