linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/Kconfig between commit 6e6fc998b8c127fe06b9350a1f16e41bfe4f109d
("ARM: 6533/1: Thumb-2: Make CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL depend on !CPU_V6")
from the arm-current tree and commit
4a50bfe365a977f634311504484342fbfffe855c ("ARM: Ensure experimental
options are so marked") from the arm tree.

Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/Kconfig
index d56d21c0,e77fe0f..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@@ -1310,8 -1319,8 +1319,8 @@@ config H
  	default 100
  
  config THUMB2_KERNEL
- 	bool "Compile the kernel in Thumb-2 mode"
+ 	bool "Compile the kernel in Thumb-2 mode (EXPERIMENTAL)"
 -	depends on CPU_V7 && EXPERIMENTAL
 +	depends on CPU_V7 && !CPU_V6 && EXPERIMENTAL
  	select AEABI
  	select ARM_ASM_UNIFIED
  	help

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

[Russell King]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:54:35AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/Kconfig between commit 6e6fc998b8c127fe06b9350a1f16e41bfe4f109d
> ("ARM: 6533/1: Thumb-2: Make CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL depend on !CPU_V6")
> from the arm-current tree and commit
> 4a50bfe365a977f634311504484342fbfffe855c ("ARM: Ensure experimental
> options are so marked") from the arm tree.
> 
> Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

Yea, rather unfortunate.  I'll fix it up locally once arm-current is
merged into mainline.

-- 
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 with the arm-current tree

[Dave Martin]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:54:35AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
>> arch/arm/Kconfig between commit 6e6fc998b8c127fe06b9350a1f16e41bfe4f109d
>> ("ARM: 6533/1: Thumb-2: Make CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL depend on !CPU_V6")
>> from the arm-current tree and commit
>> 4a50bfe365a977f634311504484342fbfffe855c ("ARM: Ensure experimental
>> options are so marked") from the arm tree.
>>
>> Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
>> necessary.
>
> Yea, rather unfortunate.  I'll fix it up locally once arm-current is
> merged into mainline.

Looks like this was a case of two simple changes on neighbouring lines
-- I'll try to avoid such conflicts for the future.

Cheers
---Dave

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

[Russell King]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:28:39PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:54:35AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Russell,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> >> arch/arm/Kconfig between commit 6e6fc998b8c127fe06b9350a1f16e41bfe4f109d
> >> ("ARM: 6533/1: Thumb-2: Make CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL depend on !CPU_V6")
> >> from the arm-current tree and commit
> >> 4a50bfe365a977f634311504484342fbfffe855c ("ARM: Ensure experimental
> >> options are so marked") from the arm tree.
> >>
> >> Just context changes.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> >> necessary.
> >
> > Yea, rather unfortunate.  I'll fix it up locally once arm-current is
> > merged into mainline.
> 
> Looks like this was a case of two simple changes on neighbouring lines
> -- I'll try to avoid such conflicts for the future.

It's not a problem.

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

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/common/gic.c between commit
e6afec9b6808eff6dc392ac07c1552e87aebcdf7 ("ARM: 6496/1: GIC: Do not try
to register more then NR_IRQS interrupts") from the arm-current tree and
commit d9522a4675b30f128d4410a6d453ab63edd18e64 ("ARM: GIC: move gic_data
[] initialization into gic_init()") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) can can carry the fix for a while.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/common/gic.c
index fea1bd7,b6a1d09..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/common/gic.c
+++ b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
@@@ -207,15 -210,13 +210,13 @@@ void __init gic_cascade_irq(unsigned in
  	set_irq_chained_handler(irq, gic_handle_cascade_irq);
  }
  
- void __init gic_dist_init(unsigned int gic_nr, void __iomem *base,
- 			  unsigned int irq_start)
+ static void __init gic_dist_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic,
+ 	unsigned int irq_start)
  {
 -	unsigned int max_irq, i;
 +	unsigned int gic_irqs, irq_limit, i;
+ 	void __iomem *base = gic->dist_base;
  	u32 cpumask = 1 << smp_processor_id();
  
- 	if (gic_nr >= MAX_GIC_NR)
- 		BUG();
- 
  	cpumask |= cpumask << 8;
  	cpumask |= cpumask << 16;
  
@@@ -259,18 -262,11 +257,18 @@@
  		writel(0xffffffff, base + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + i * 4 / 32);
  
  	/*
 +	 * Limit number of interrupts registered to the platform maximum
 +	 */
- 	irq_limit = gic_data[gic_nr].irq_offset + gic_irqs;
++	irq_limit = gic->irq_offset + gic_irqs;
 +	if (WARN_ON(irq_limit > NR_IRQS))
 +		irq_limit = NR_IRQS;
 +
 +	/*
  	 * Setup the Linux IRQ subsystem.
  	 */
 -	for (i = irq_start; i < gic->irq_offset + max_irq; i++) {
 +	for (i = irq_start; i < irq_limit; i++) {
  		set_irq_chip(i, &gic_chip);
- 		set_irq_chip_data(i, &gic_data[gic_nr]);
+ 		set_irq_chip_data(i, gic);
  		set_irq_handler(i, handle_level_irq);
  		set_irq_flags(i, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_PROBE);
  	}

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

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) can can carry the fix for a while.

This is because the imx-for-next branch still contained a patch which
I was hoping to get into 2.6.36. This patch conflicts with another patch
in the 2.6.37 branch (I resolved this manually in my next branch).
As all patches for next are now in Russells branch I just scrubbed
my for-next branch and this merge conflict should be gone now.

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

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

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Russell,

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:42:08AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:23:57AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:03:54AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > Hi Russell,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> > > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> > > > > 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> > > > > selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> > > > > 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> > > > > to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
> > > A more concerning question is - these recent conflicts have been happening
> > > as a result of merging people's GIT trees, which tend to be sent close
> > > to the merge window.
> > > 
> > > If the first time their changes become visible to linux-next is when
> > > they're merged into my tree, something is wrong...
> > I tried to reconstruct that.  I guess I cannot see yet that Russell took
> > 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 because I have no access to
> > Russell's kernel.org repo and his ftp.arm.linux.org.uk repo currently
> > barfs for me and Stephen didn't push out a tree newer than 20101011 yet.
> 
> What's up with it?  What URL are you using?

	http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/arm/kernel/git-cur/linux-2.6-arm.git/

and it fails for me with

	ukl@octopus:~/gsrc/linux-2.6$ git fetch rmk
	error: Unable to find 81490fcdf406f42fff9d9f57d541788f90242885 under
	http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/arm/kernel/git-cur/linux-2.6-arm.git
	Cannot obtain needed commit 81490fcdf406f42fff9d9f57d541788f90242885
	while processing commit d7840ed08bf6f74677a6b2b21b96269180be9eb6.
	error: Fetch failed.

I'm trying to reproduce with 

	git clone --reference ~/gsrc/linux-2.6 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git t
	cd t
	git remote add -f rmk http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/pub/linux/arm/kernel/git-cur/linux-2.6-arm.git/

... sometime later ...

works, so something in my repo seems to be the problem.  I assume a pack
file is corrupt?!  Hmm, I'll try to remove all packs I got from your
repo ...

... wget ... sed $magic ... rm $(cat filelist)

	ukl@octopus:~/gsrc/linux-2.6$ git fetch rmk
	 + 86c4743...74a4333 devel      -> rmk/devel  (forced update)
	   aa30900..c9ee46a  devel-stable -> rmk/devel-stable
	   d907387..a581da1  master     -> rmk/master
	   151b6a5..85a3318  origin     -> rmk/origin

\o/

I guess the problem is that I "Ctrl-C"d an earlier git fetch.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

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

[Russell King]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:23:57AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:03:54AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Hi Russell,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> > > > 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> > > > selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> > > > 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> > > > to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
> > A more concerning question is - these recent conflicts have been happening
> > as a result of merging people's GIT trees, which tend to be sent close
> > to the merge window.
> > 
> > If the first time their changes become visible to linux-next is when
> > they're merged into my tree, something is wrong...
> I tried to reconstruct that.  I guess I cannot see yet that Russell took
> 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 because I have no access to
> Russell's kernel.org repo and his ftp.arm.linux.org.uk repo currently
> barfs for me and Stephen didn't push out a tree newer than 20101011 yet.

What's up with it?  What URL are you using?

-- 
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 with the arm-current tree

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Russell,

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:28:14AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:03:54AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Russell,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> > > 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> > > selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> > > 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> > > to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
> A more concerning question is - these recent conflicts have been happening
> as a result of merging people's GIT trees, which tend to be sent close
> to the merge window.
> 
> If the first time their changes become visible to linux-next is when
> they're merged into my tree, something is wrong...
I tried to reconstruct that.  I guess I cannot see yet that Russell took
4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 because I have no access to
Russell's kernel.org repo and his ftp.arm.linux.org.uk repo currently
barfs for me and Stephen didn't push out a tree newer than 20101011 yet.

4793ca4028e4dc is a regression fix that should go into .36, so this is
OK, isn't it.  77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 is already some
time in Sascha's tree, and so in next.  But 4793ca4028e4dc is new and
only these two together conflict.

Stephen, note that Sascha fixed the same conflict already in his tree.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

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

[Russell King]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:03:54AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> > 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> > selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> > 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> > to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) can can carry the fix for a while.
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> > 
> > diff --cc arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
> > index 6830afd,28f73a1..0000000
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
> > @@@ -259,8 -258,9 +258,9 @@@ static void __init eukrea_cpuimx27_init
> >   	i2c_register_board_info(0, eukrea_cpuimx27_i2c_devices,
> >   				ARRAY_SIZE(eukrea_cpuimx27_i2c_devices));
> >   
> > - 	imx27_add_i2c_imx0(&cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
> >  -	imx27_add_imx_i2c(1, &cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
> > ++	imx27_add_imx_i2c(0, &cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
> >   
> > + 	imx27_add_fec(NULL);
> >   	platform_add_devices(platform_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(platform_devices));
> >   
> >   #if defined(CONFIG_MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX27_USESDHC2)
> > 
> This is resolved correctly.

A more concerning question is - these recent conflicts have been happening
as a result of merging people's GIT trees, which tend to be sent close
to the merge window.

If the first time their changes become visible to linux-next is when
they're merged into my tree, something is wrong...

-- 
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 with the arm-current tree

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:33:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
> 4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
> selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
> 77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
> to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) can can carry the fix for a while.
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
> index 6830afd,28f73a1..0000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
> @@@ -259,8 -258,9 +258,9 @@@ static void __init eukrea_cpuimx27_init
>   	i2c_register_board_info(0, eukrea_cpuimx27_i2c_devices,
>   				ARRAY_SIZE(eukrea_cpuimx27_i2c_devices));
>   
> - 	imx27_add_i2c_imx0(&cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
>  -	imx27_add_imx_i2c(1, &cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
> ++	imx27_add_imx_i2c(0, &cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
>   
> + 	imx27_add_fec(NULL);
>   	platform_add_devices(platform_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(platform_devices));
>   
>   #if defined(CONFIG_MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX27_USESDHC2)
> 
This is resolved correctly.

Thanks
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c between commit
4793ca4028e4dcdbf2740db50995c9378ded3cf8 ("cpuimx27: fix i2c bus
selection") from the arm-current tree and commit
77a406da5a5b76445a816d5f043fc9aef4026ff1 ("ARM: imx: fix name of macros
to add imx-i2c devices") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) can can carry the fix for a while.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
index 6830afd,28f73a1..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-cpuimx27.c
@@@ -259,8 -258,9 +258,9 @@@ static void __init eukrea_cpuimx27_init
  	i2c_register_board_info(0, eukrea_cpuimx27_i2c_devices,
  				ARRAY_SIZE(eukrea_cpuimx27_i2c_devices));
  
- 	imx27_add_i2c_imx0(&cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
 -	imx27_add_imx_i2c(1, &cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
++	imx27_add_imx_i2c(0, &cpuimx27_i2c1_data);
  
+ 	imx27_add_fec(NULL);
  	platform_add_devices(platform_devices, ARRAY_SIZE(platform_devices));
  
  #if defined(CONFIG_MACH_EUKREA_CPUIMX27_USESDHC2)

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

[Anders Larsen]

On 2010-10-11 03:24:41, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/system.h between commit
> 5c189208b606a85b4e97109af70d59f10a42fdfd ("ARM: 6436/1: AT91: Fix
> power-saving in idle-mode on 926T processors") from the arm-current tree
> and commit cb809b1a5ebffca8cf0314b788919989e8e4ab5f ("AT91: fix use of
> clock disable on idle for AT91x40 devices") from the arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

Acked-by: Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>

Thanks
Anders		(Author of "...6436/1...")

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/system.h between commit
5c189208b606a85b4e97109af70d59f10a42fdfd ("ARM: 6436/1: AT91: Fix
power-saving in idle-mode on 926T processors") from the arm-current tree
and commit cb809b1a5ebffca8cf0314b788919989e8e4ab5f ("AT91: fix use of
clock disable on idle for AT91x40 devices") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/system.h
index ee8db15,bfbb612..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/system.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/system.h
@@@ -32,12 -33,16 +32,16 @@@ static inline void arch_idle(void
  	 * Disable the processor clock.  The processor will be automatically
  	 * re-enabled by an interrupt or by a reset.
  	 */
+ #ifdef AT91_PS
+ 	at91_sys_write(AT91_PS_CR, AT91_PS_CR_CPU);
+ #else
  	at91_sys_write(AT91_PMC_SCDR, AT91_PMC_PCK);
+ #endif
 -#else
 +#ifndef CONFIG_CPU_ARM920T
  	/*
  	 * Set the processor (CP15) into 'Wait for Interrupt' mode.
 -	 * Unlike disabling the processor clock via the PMC (above)
 -	 *  this allows the processor to be woken via JTAG.
 +	 * Post-RM9200 processors need this in conjunction with the above
 +	 * to save power when idle.
  	 */
  	cpu_do_idle();
  #endif

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mm/mmu.c between commit f1a2481c0ad3aebd94d11b317c488deaadc25002
("ARM: 6407/1: mmu: Setup MT_MEMORY and MT_MEMORY_NONCACHED L1 entries")
from the arm-current tree and commit
dc966984f44f16b8bb6b0644e501c7c2163ead69 ("ARM: Allow SMP kernels to boot
on UP systems") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix for a while.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
index 6a3a2d0,a789320..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
@@@ -436,22 -423,21 +433,23 @@@ static void __init build_mem_type_table
  		mem_types[MT_MINICLEAN].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_APX|PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE;
  		mem_types[MT_CACHECLEAN].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_APX|PMD_SECT_AP_WRITE;
  
- #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- 		/*
- 		 * Mark memory with the "shared" attribute for SMP systems
- 		 */
- 		user_pgprot |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- 		kern_pgprot |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- 		vecs_pgprot |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- 		mem_types[MT_DEVICE_WC].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
- 		mem_types[MT_DEVICE_WC].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- 		mem_types[MT_DEVICE_CACHED].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
- 		mem_types[MT_DEVICE_CACHED].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- 		mem_types[MT_MEMORY].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
- 		mem_types[MT_MEMORY].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- 		mem_types[MT_MEMORY_NONCACHED].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
- 		mem_types[MT_MEMORY_NONCACHED].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
- #endif
+ 		if (is_smp()) {
+ 			/*
+ 			 * Mark memory with the "shared" attribute
+ 			 * for SMP systems
+ 			 */
+ 			user_pgprot |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 			kern_pgprot |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 			vecs_pgprot |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 			mem_types[MT_DEVICE_WC].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
+ 			mem_types[MT_DEVICE_WC].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 			mem_types[MT_DEVICE_CACHED].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
+ 			mem_types[MT_DEVICE_CACHED].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 			mem_types[MT_MEMORY].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
++			mem_types[MT_MEMORY].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 			mem_types[MT_MEMORY_NONCACHED].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_S;
++			mem_types[MT_MEMORY_NONCACHED].prot_pte |= L_PTE_SHARED;
+ 		}
  	}
  
  	/*

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-l7200/include/mach/debug-macro.S between commit
a2d7c57a2eb1d30a7fdb8df9e965dea721b75711 ("ARM: 6257/1: arm/l7200: fix
debug macro compilation failure") from the arm-current tree and commit
c9c6fe5033191d82e1d819105485c795062107fd ("ARM: Remove support for LinkUp
Systems L7200 SDP") from the arm tree.

The latter just removes the file, so I did that.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-mx25/clock.c between commit
828df43f139c7fbf0d505c7b9a666d321a0f2c25 ("mx25: properly initialize
clocks") from the arm-current tree and commit
dd84ce18c8f522d26aef6e9e9c05c32485b667a7 ("ARM: Consolidate clks_register
() and similar") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix for a while.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-mx25/clock.c
index 6acc88b,66916f1..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-mx25/clock.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx25/clock.c
@@@ -216,21 -208,9 +216,18 @@@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = 
  	_REGISTER_CLOCK("fec.0", NULL, fec_clk)
  };
  
 -int __init mx25_clocks_init(unsigned long fref)
 +int __init mx25_clocks_init(void)
  {
- 	int i;
- 
- 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lookups); i++)
- 		clkdev_add(&lookups[i]);
+ 	clkdev_add_table(lookups, ARRAY_SIZE(lookups));
 +
 +	/* Turn off all clocks except the ones we need to survive, namely:
 +	 * EMI, GPIO1-3 (CCM_CGCR1[18:16]), GPT1, IOMUXC (CCM_CGCR1[27]), IIM,
 +	 * SCC
 +	 */
 +	__raw_writel((1 << 19), CRM_BASE + CCM_CGCR0);
 +	__raw_writel((0xf << 16) | (3 << 26), CRM_BASE + CCM_CGCR1);
 +	__raw_writel((1 << 5), CRM_BASE + CCM_CGCR2);
 +
  	mxc_timer_init(&gpt_clk, MX25_IO_ADDRESS(MX25_GPT1_BASE_ADDR), 54);
  
  	return 0;

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]

Hi Ben,

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:33:07 +0000 Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org> wrote:
>
> Is that from the merge of next-samsung or from two parts of the ARM
> trees?

I merged the arm-current tree
(ssh://master.kernel.org/home/rmk/linux-2.6-arm.git#master) into
linux-next and then later the arm tree
(ssh://master.kernel.org/home/rmk/linux-2.6-arm.git#devel) and the second
merge produced this conflict.  However, Russell has merged the samsung
tree (git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git#next-samsung) into the arm
tree, already.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Ben Dooks]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:35:34AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/Makefile between commit 95b8f20fd6a2694a16b8addb190b942bfb670c88
> (ARM: fix badly placed mach/plat entries in Kconfig & Makefile"") from
> the arm-current tree and commit c4ffccddd54b669cc9683f2c69e31035e916a1a0
> ("ARM: S5P6440: Add new Kconfig and Makefiles") from the arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix for a while.

Is that from the merge of next-samsung or from two parts of the ARM
trees?

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> (Sorry, cut and paste diff)
> diff --cc arch/arm/Makefile
> index 9e75825,bbcd512..0000000
> --- a/arch/arm/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
> @@@ -184,7 -184,9 +185,8 @@@ plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_ORION)  := orio
>   plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_PXA)               := pxa
>   plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX)   := s3c24xx s3c samsung
>   plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C64XX)   := s3c64xx s3c samsung
>  -plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S5PC1XX)   := s5pc1xx s3c samsung
> + plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S5P)               := s5p samsung s3c
>  -plat-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STMP3XXX)  := stmp3xxx
>  +plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S5PC1XX)   := s5pc1xx s3c samsung
>   
>   ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_EBSA110),y)
>   # This is what happens if you forget the IOCS16 line.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/Makefile between commit 95b8f20fd6a2694a16b8addb190b942bfb670c88
(ARM: fix badly placed mach/plat entries in Kconfig & Makefile"") from
the arm-current tree and commit c4ffccddd54b669cc9683f2c69e31035e916a1a0
("ARM: S5P6440: Add new Kconfig and Makefiles") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix for a while.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

(Sorry, cut and paste diff)
diff --cc arch/arm/Makefile
index 9e75825,bbcd512..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
@@@ -184,7 -184,9 +185,8 @@@ plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_ORION)  := orio
  plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_PXA)               := pxa
  plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C24XX)   := s3c24xx s3c samsung
  plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S3C64XX)   := s3c64xx s3c samsung
 -plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S5PC1XX)   := s5pc1xx s3c samsung
+ plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S5P)               := s5p samsung s3c
 -plat-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STMP3XXX)  := stmp3xxx
 +plat-$(CONFIG_PLAT_S5PC1XX)   := s5pc1xx s3c samsung
  
  ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_EBSA110),y)
  # This is what happens if you forget the IOCS16 line.

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/Kconfig between commit 9abf137c6dbf6eabb3add98fcd8352c3dd520568
("ARM: ARCH_MXC should select HAVE_CLK") from the arm-current tree and
commit 788c9700e7855f8a8cc8875e30d2518b57385c20 ("[ARM] Kconfig: sort ARM
machine class support choice list by option name") from the arm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/Kconfig
index e60ec54,01cb452..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@@ -292,6 -292,29 +292,30 @@@ config ARCH_FOOTBRIDG
  	  Support for systems based on the DC21285 companion chip
  	  ("FootBridge"), such as the Simtec CATS and the Rebel NetWinder.
  
+ config ARCH_MXC
+ 	bool "Freescale MXC/iMX-based"
+ 	select GENERIC_TIME
+ 	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
+ 	select ARCH_MTD_XIP
+ 	select GENERIC_GPIO
+ 	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
++	select HAVE_CLK
+ 	help
+ 	  Support for Freescale MXC/iMX-based family of processors
+ 
+ config ARCH_STMP3XXX
+ 	bool "Freescale STMP3xxx"
+ 	select CPU_ARM926T
+ 	select HAVE_CLK
+ 	select COMMON_CLKDEV
+ 	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
+ 	select GENERIC_TIME
+ 	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
+ 	select GENERIC_GPIO
+ 	select USB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI
+ 	help
+ 	  Support for systems based on the Freescale 3xxx CPUs.
+ 
  config ARCH_NETX
  	bool "Hilscher NetX based"
  	select CPU_ARM926T

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got conflictS in
arch/arm/include/asm/elf.h and arch/arm/kernel/module.c between commit
4731f8b66dd34ebf0e67ca6ba9162b0e509bec06 ("[ARM] 5428/1: Module
relocation update for R_ARM_V4BX") from the arm-current tree and commit
2e1926e7b5d39eb31880152d636e8d8d011888cb ("[ARM] 5384/1: unwind: Add
stack unwinding support for loadable modules") from the arm tree.

Just overlapping additions.  I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the
fix as necessary.

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

diff --cc arch/arm/include/asm/elf.h
index ce3b36e,def8eac..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/elf.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/elf.h
@@@ -50,7 -50,7 +50,8 @@@ typedef struct user_fp elf_fpregset_t
  #define R_ARM_ABS32	2
  #define R_ARM_CALL	28
  #define R_ARM_JUMP24	29
 +#define R_ARM_V4BX	40
+ #define R_ARM_PREL31	42
  
  /*
   * These are used to set parameters in the core dumps.
diff --cc arch/arm/kernel/module.c
index 9f509fd,13dbd5b..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/module.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/module.c
@@@ -132,15 -155,11 +155,20 @@@ apply_relocate(Elf32_Shdr *sechdrs, con
  			*(u32 *)loc |= offset & 0x00ffffff;
  			break;
  
 +	       case R_ARM_V4BX:
 +		       /* Preserve Rm and the condition code. Alter
 +			* other bits to re-code instruction as
 +			* MOV PC,Rm.
 +			*/
 +		       *(u32 *)loc &= 0xf000000f;
 +		       *(u32 *)loc |= 0x01a0f000;
 +		       break;
 +
+ 		case R_ARM_PREL31:
+ 			offset = *(u32 *)loc + sym->st_value - loc;
+ 			*(u32 *)loc = offset & 0x7fffffff;
+ 			break;
+ 
  		default:
  			printk(KERN_ERR "%s: unknown relocation: %u\n",
  			       module->name, ELF32_R_TYPE(rel->r_info));

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

[Russell King]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 01:18:52PM +1300, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/gpio.c between commit
> > 2b768b6cdbcf7fa0761e6c35c6ea288297582c43 ("[ARM] 5391/1: AT91: Enable
> > GPIO clocks earlier") from the arm-current tree and commit
> > f373e8c0639f1720d2d0fe414990f504e113c2ba ("[ARM] 5373/2: Add gpiolib
> > support to AT91") from the arm tree.
> > 
> > Overlapping changes.  I fixed it up as below (which may not be correct,
> > so needs checking) and can carry the fix for a while.
> 
> The fix looks okay. Stupid question: What is the easiest/best way for me
> to apply the same fix into my tree to replicate the merge? My tree has
> some additional stuff in it to support the custom AT91 board I am using.
> I tried downloading the patch 5391/1 from the patch system and using
> git-apply, but there doesn't seem to be a way to force it into a merge
> like you can with git-am (and I can't find that patch on the mailing
> list). If I can figure out how to do this, I'll test the code to make
> sure it is still okay.

Probably the easiest solution is to wait for Linus to return (Tuesday?)
and then for me to push my master branch to Linus.  Once that's happened,
get 5391 rebased on top of your patch.  Or something like that.

-- 
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 with the arm-current tree

[Ryan Mallon]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-at91/gpio.c between commit
> 2b768b6cdbcf7fa0761e6c35c6ea288297582c43 ("[ARM] 5391/1: AT91: Enable
> GPIO clocks earlier") from the arm-current tree and commit
> f373e8c0639f1720d2d0fe414990f504e113c2ba ("[ARM] 5373/2: Add gpiolib
> support to AT91") from the arm tree.
> 
> Overlapping changes.  I fixed it up as below (which may not be correct,
> so needs checking) and can carry the fix for a while.

The fix looks okay. Stupid question: What is the easiest/best way for me
to apply the same fix into my tree to replicate the merge? My tree has
some additional stuff in it to support the custom AT91 board I am using.
I tried downloading the patch 5391/1 from the patch system and using
git-apply, but there doesn't seem to be a way to force it into a merge
like you can with git-am (and I can't find that patch on the mailing
list). If I can figure out how to do this, I'll test the code to make
sure it is still okay.

~Ryan

-- 
Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre

       Ryan Mallon                              Unit 5, Amuri Park
       Phone: +64 3 3779127                     404 Barbadoes St
       Fax:   +64 3 3779135                     PO Box 13 889
       Email: ryan@bluewatersys.com             Christchurch, 8013
       Web:   http://www.bluewatersys.com       New Zealand
       Freecall Australia  1800 148 751         USA 1800 261 2934

linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with the arm-current tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-at91/gpio.c between commit
2b768b6cdbcf7fa0761e6c35c6ea288297582c43 ("[ARM] 5391/1: AT91: Enable
GPIO clocks earlier") from the arm-current tree and commit
f373e8c0639f1720d2d0fe414990f504e113c2ba ("[ARM] 5373/2: Add gpiolib
support to AT91") from the arm tree.

Overlapping changes.  I fixed it up as below (which may not be correct,
so needs checking) and can carry the fix for a while.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/gpio.c
index 2f7d497,028e4f7..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/gpio.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/gpio.c
@@@ -430,68 -437,7 +437,8 @@@ static void gpio_irq_handler(unsigned i
  
  /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
  
- #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
- 
- static int at91_gpio_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused)
- {
- 	int bank, j;
- 
- 	/* print heading */
- 	seq_printf(s, "Pin\t");
- 	for (bank = 0; bank < gpio_banks; bank++) {
- 		seq_printf(s, "PIO%c\t", 'A' + bank);
- 	};
- 	seq_printf(s, "\n\n");
- 
- 	/* print pin status */
- 	for (j = 0; j < 32; j++) {
- 		seq_printf(s, "%i:\t", j);
- 
- 		for (bank = 0; bank < gpio_banks; bank++) {
- 			unsigned	pin  = PIN_BASE + (32 * bank) + j;
- 			void __iomem	*pio = pin_to_controller(pin);
- 			unsigned	mask = pin_to_mask(pin);
- 
- 			if (__raw_readl(pio + PIO_PSR) & mask)
- 				seq_printf(s, "GPIO:%s", __raw_readl(pio + PIO_PDSR) & mask ? "1" : "0");
- 			else
- 				seq_printf(s, "%s", __raw_readl(pio + PIO_ABSR) & mask ? "B" : "A");
- 
- 			seq_printf(s, "\t");
- 		}
- 
- 		seq_printf(s, "\n");
- 	}
- 
- 	return 0;
- }
- 
- static int at91_gpio_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
- {
- 	return single_open(file, at91_gpio_show, NULL);
- }
- 
- static const struct file_operations at91_gpio_operations = {
- 	.open		= at91_gpio_open,
- 	.read		= seq_read,
- 	.llseek		= seq_lseek,
- 	.release	= single_release,
- };
- 
- static int __init at91_gpio_debugfs_init(void)
- {
- 	/* /sys/kernel/debug/at91_gpio */
- 	(void) debugfs_create_file("at91_gpio", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, NULL, NULL, &at91_gpio_operations);
- 	return 0;
- }
- postcore_initcall(at91_gpio_debugfs_init);
- 
- #endif
- 
- /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
- 
 -/* This lock class tells lockdep that GPIO irqs are in a different
 +/*
 + * This lock class tells lockdep that GPIO irqs are in a different
   * category than their parents, so it won't report false recursion.
   */
  static struct lock_class_key gpio_lock_class;
@@@ -502,17 -448,20 +449,17 @@@
  void __init at91_gpio_irq_setup(void)
  {
  	unsigned		pioc, pin;
- 	struct at91_gpio_bank	*this, *prev;
+ 	struct at91_gpio_chip	*this, *prev;
  
- 	for (pioc = 0, pin = PIN_BASE, this = gpio, prev = NULL;
+ 	for (pioc = 0, pin = PIN_BASE, this = gpio_chip, prev = NULL;
  			pioc++ < gpio_banks;
  			prev = this, this++) {
- 		unsigned	id = this->id;
+ 		unsigned	id = this->bank->id;
  		unsigned	i;
  
 -		/* enable PIO controller's clock */
 -		clk_enable(this->bank->clock);
 -
  		__raw_writel(~0, this->regbase + PIO_IDR);
  
- 		for (i = 0, pin = this->chipbase; i < 32; i++, pin++) {
+ 		for (i = 0, pin = this->chip.base; i < 32; i++, pin++) {
  			lockdep_set_class(&irq_desc[pin].lock, &gpio_lock_class);
  
  			/*
@@@ -547,22 -579,21 +577,28 @@@ void __init at91_gpio_init(struct at91_
  
  	BUG_ON(nr_banks > MAX_GPIO_BANKS);
  
- 	gpio = data;
  	gpio_banks = nr_banks;
  
- 	for (i = 0, last = NULL; i < nr_banks; i++, last = data, data++) {
- 		data->chipbase = PIN_BASE + i * 32;
- 		data->regbase = data->offset + (void __iomem *)AT91_VA_BASE_SYS;
+ 	for (i = 0; i < nr_banks; i++) {
+ 		at91_gpio = &gpio_chip[i];
+ 
+ 		at91_gpio->bank = &data[i];
+ 		at91_gpio->chip.base = PIN_BASE + i * 32;
+ 		at91_gpio->regbase = at91_gpio->bank->offset +
+ 			(void __iomem *)AT91_VA_BASE_SYS;
  
 -		/* AT91SAM9263_ID_PIOCDE groups PIOC, PIOD, PIOE */
 +		/* enable PIO controller's clock */
- 		clk_enable(data->clock);
++		clk_enable(at91_gpio->bank->clock);
 +
 +		/*
 +		 * Some processors share peripheral ID between multiple GPIO banks.
 +		 *  SAM9263 (PIOC, PIOD, PIOE)
 +		 *  CAP9 (PIOA, PIOB, PIOC, PIOD)
 +		 */
- 		if (last && last->id == data->id)
- 			last->next = data;
+ 		if (last && last->bank->id == at91_gpio->bank->id)
+ 			last->next = at91_gpio;
+ 		last = at91_gpio;
+ 
+ 		gpiochip_add(&at91_gpio->chip);
  	}
  }