linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 764 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/plat-omap/devices.c between commit
2817142f31bfbf26c216bf4f9192540c81b2d071 ("[WATCHDOG] omap_wdt.c: sync
linux-omap changes") from Linus' tree and commit
cc26b3b01bc96a8b8c36671b0dc4898b2a152ea8 ("ARM: OMAP3: Add minimal
omap3430 support") from the arm tree.

The former removed code that the latter modified.  I fixed it up
by just removing the section of code as the former patch seems to take
account of what the latter is trying to do (but it may not be correct).
You can fix it by merging Linus' tree and doing this or a similar (maybe
correct) fixup.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree

[Russell King]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:27:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/plat-omap/devices.c between commit
> 2817142f31bfbf26c216bf4f9192540c81b2d071 ("[WATCHDOG] omap_wdt.c: sync
> linux-omap changes") from Linus' tree and commit
> cc26b3b01bc96a8b8c36671b0dc4898b2a152ea8 ("ARM: OMAP3: Add minimal
> omap3430 support") from the arm tree.
> 
> The former removed code that the latter modified.  I fixed it up
> by just removing the section of code as the former patch seems to take
> account of what the latter is trying to do (but it may not be correct).
> You can fix it by merging Linus' tree and doing this or a similar (maybe
> correct) fixup.

This sounds very messy.  I suspect I need Tony to look at that and
tell me what the right solution is.  However...

Since the OMAP updates I merged from Tony are already broken due to
missing definitions, and I'm not getting any response from Tony on
fixing those, I will be dropping the problematical updates so we can
at least keep mainline OMAP in a buildable state.  That seems to mean
dropping the new OMAP3 support.

That would include dropping the above commit causing the merge conflict.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree

[David Brownell]

On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Russell King wrote:
> Since the OMAP updates I merged from Tony are already broken due to
> missing definitions, and I'm not getting any response from Tony on
> fixing those,

Probably has to do with his travel plans, which he mentioned
last week (Thursday?).  I think he's back online in the next
day or two.


> I will be dropping the problematical updates so we can 
> at least keep mainline OMAP in a buildable state.  That seems to mean
> dropping the new OMAP3 support.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree

[Tony Lindgren]

* David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> [081014 11:53]:
> On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Russell King wrote:
> > Since the OMAP updates I merged from Tony are already broken due to
> > missing definitions, and I'm not getting any response from Tony on
> > fixing those,

I just sent you a fix for that few hours ago.

> Probably has to do with his travel plans, which he mentioned
> last week (Thursday?).  I think he's back online in the next
> day or two.
> 
> 
> > I will be dropping the problematical updates so we can 
> > at least keep mainline OMAP in a buildable state.  That seems to mean
> > dropping the new OMAP3 support.

Yes, I'm back online. And please don't drop these patches, sounds
like this is a trivial merge issue.

Regards,

Tony

[PATCH] ARM: OMAP: Revert omap3 WDT changes to avoid merge conflict (Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree)

[Tony Lindgren]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 967 bytes --]

* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [081014 13:09]:
> * David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> [081014 11:53]:
> > On Tuesday 14 October 2008, Russell King wrote:
> > > Since the OMAP updates I merged from Tony are already broken due to
> > > missing definitions, and I'm not getting any response from Tony on
> > > fixing those,
> 
> I just sent you a fix for that few hours ago.
> 
> > Probably has to do with his travel plans, which he mentioned
> > last week (Thursday?).  I think he's back online in the next
> > day or two.
> > 
> > 
> > > I will be dropping the problematical updates so we can 
> > > at least keep mainline OMAP in a buildable state.  That seems to mean
> > > dropping the new OMAP3 support.
> 
> Yes, I'm back online. And please don't drop these patches, sounds
> like this is a trivial merge issue.

And here's the patch for Russell to avoid the merge conflict.
Also in Russell's patch tracking system as patch 5302/1.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony

[-- Attachment #2: wdt.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 894 bytes --]

From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:25:20 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: Revert omap3 WDT changes to avoid merge conflict

With the upcoming WDT patches OMAP_WDT_BASE is no longer needed
in devices.c. Revert some earlier omap3 changes to avoid merge
conflicts with the WDT patches.

Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>

--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/devices.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/devices.c
@@ -399,17 +399,8 @@ static inline void omap_init_uwire(void) {}
 
 #if	defined(CONFIG_OMAP_WATCHDOG) || defined(CONFIG_OMAP_WATCHDOG_MODULE)
 
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP34XX)
-#define	OMAP_WDT_BASE		0x48314000
-#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX)
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2430
-/* WDT2 */
-#define	OMAP_WDT_BASE		0x49016000
-#else
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX
 #define	OMAP_WDT_BASE		0x48022000
-#endif
-
 #else
 #define	OMAP_WDT_BASE		0xfffeb000
 #endif

Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: Revert omap3 WDT changes to avoid merge conflict (Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree)

[Russell King]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:30:24PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> And here's the patch for Russell to avoid the merge conflict.
> Also in Russell's patch tracking system as patch 5302/1.

This evening, only now having the time to investigate what's going
on there (as a result of added your other patch to fix the build
error I reported on Saturday) it turns out to be much more trivial
a conflict than I was suspecting from sfr's description.

However, the results of the final merge with 'master' on my devel
branch never go to Linus, so your patch may still be required.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: