From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc
 tree
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:06:09 +0000
Message-ID: <56DEF871.8050102@arm.com>
References: <20160307150402.191ba735@canb.auug.org.au>
 <56DEF546.9090900@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
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 <rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:06:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: <56DEF546.9090900@arm.com>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Przywara?= <andre.przywara@arm.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Hi Andre,

On 08/03/16 15:52, Andr=E9 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 fo=
undation-v8.dts")
>>
>> from the watchdog tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no act=
ion
>> 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.

--=20
Regards,
Sudeep