From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 5/8] ARM: tegra: SCU base rework Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:46:10 -0700 Message-ID: <510B4892.3050900@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1359582159-28816-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1359582159-28816-5-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20130201043222.GC5844@quad.lixom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: arm-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 01/31/2013 09:35 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:42:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> Tegra currently relies on the SCU to determine the number of CPU >>> cores, and also hard-codes the SCU physical address. >>> >>> This series adds a /cpus node to the Tegra device tree, and updates >>> the code to rely solely on that to determine the CPU count. A new >>> API is introduced to query for the existence of SCU registers, and the >>> SCU register address. Tegra and OMAP2 are converted to use these new >>> APIs. >>> >>> This pull request is based on a merge of v3.8-rc3, and arm-soc's >>> depends/rmk-perf branch. >> >> This one looks like it should also be based on your cleanup, since it has >> conflicts with it. Please rebase accordingly. > > By the way, just in case this looks like a random request... > > A few merge conflicts between independent topic branches is not a big > deal; we can deal with those. > > What's somewhat annoying though, is when a previous cleanup branch > conflicts with later features. So, please base features on top of > cleanups accordingly. Hmm. And here I was thinking that I was basing branches on top of each-other too much given your previous comments about merge conflicts being OK! In case it helps, the following commit in linux-next shows the conflict resolution: ee05948 Merge branch 'for-3.9/scu-base-rework' into for-3.9/soc-t114 I guess I missed this because I didn't merge for-3.9/scu-base-rework into my for-next on its own, but only as part of for-3.9/soc-t114, within which I had resolved the conflict as above. So, you could just skip this pull request, and it'll be pulled in when you merge for-3.9/soc-t114. It that doesn't work for you, I can do the rebase tomorrow morning. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:46:10 -0700 Subject: [GIT PULL 5/8] ARM: tegra: SCU base rework In-Reply-To: References: <1359582159-28816-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1359582159-28816-5-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20130201043222.GC5844@quad.lixom.net> Message-ID: <510B4892.3050900@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/31/2013 09:35 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:42:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> Tegra currently relies on the SCU to determine the number of CPU >>> cores, and also hard-codes the SCU physical address. >>> >>> This series adds a /cpus node to the Tegra device tree, and updates >>> the code to rely solely on that to determine the CPU count. A new >>> API is introduced to query for the existence of SCU registers, and the >>> SCU register address. Tegra and OMAP2 are converted to use these new >>> APIs. >>> >>> This pull request is based on a merge of v3.8-rc3, and arm-soc's >>> depends/rmk-perf branch. >> >> This one looks like it should also be based on your cleanup, since it has >> conflicts with it. Please rebase accordingly. > > By the way, just in case this looks like a random request... > > A few merge conflicts between independent topic branches is not a big > deal; we can deal with those. > > What's somewhat annoying though, is when a previous cleanup branch > conflicts with later features. So, please base features on top of > cleanups accordingly. Hmm. And here I was thinking that I was basing branches on top of each-other too much given your previous comments about merge conflicts being OK! In case it helps, the following commit in linux-next shows the conflict resolution: ee05948 Merge branch 'for-3.9/scu-base-rework' into for-3.9/soc-t114 I guess I missed this because I didn't merge for-3.9/scu-base-rework into my for-next on its own, but only as part of for-3.9/soc-t114, within which I had resolved the conflict as above. So, you could just skip this pull request, and it'll be pulled in when you merge for-3.9/soc-t114. It that doesn't work for you, I can do the rebase tomorrow morning.