linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the xen-arm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the xen-arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
arm-soc tree.

The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
 notifier

due to code movement.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
@@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
  */
 
 #include <linux/init.h>
-#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
 
@@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
 	return -ENODEV;
 }
 
-static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
-{
-	gic_secondary_init(0);
-}
-
 #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
 void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
 {
@@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
 }
 
 struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
-	.smp_secondary_init	= psci_secondary_init,
 	.smp_boot_secondary	= psci_boot_secondary,
 	.cpu_die		= psci_cpu_die,
 };
-- 
1.8.1


-- 
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Catalin Marinas]

Stephen,

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> arm-soc tree.
> 
> The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
>  notifier
> 
> due to code movement.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
>  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
>   */
>  
>  #include <linux/init.h>
> -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>  #include <linux/smp.h>
>  #include <linux/of.h>
>  
> @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
>  	return -ENODEV;
>  }
>  
> -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> -	gic_secondary_init(0);
> -}
> -
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>  void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
> @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
>  }
>  
>  struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> -	.smp_secondary_init	= psci_secondary_init,
>  	.smp_boot_secondary	= psci_boot_secondary,
>  	.cpu_die		= psci_cpu_die,
>  };

The fix looks fine. Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

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

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > arm-soc tree.
> > 
> > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> >  notifier
> > 
> > due to code movement.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> >  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> >   */
> >  
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> >  #include <linux/smp.h>
> >  #include <linux/of.h>
> >  
> > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> >  	return -ENODEV;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > -{
> > -	gic_secondary_init(0);
> > -}
> > -
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >  void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> >  {
> > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> >  }
> >  
> >  struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > -	.smp_secondary_init	= psci_secondary_init,
> >  	.smp_boot_secondary	= psci_boot_secondary,
> >  	.cpu_die		= psci_cpu_die,
> >  };
> 
> The fix looks fine. Thanks.

Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2661 bytes --]

Hi Stefano,

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:50:22 +0100 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > > arm-soc tree.
> > > 
> > > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> > > 
> > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> > >  notifier
> > > 
> > > due to code movement.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> > >  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > >   */
> > >  
> > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > >  #include <linux/smp.h>
> > >  #include <linux/of.h>
> > >  
> > > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> > >  	return -ENODEV;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > -{
> > > -	gic_secondary_init(0);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > >  void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > > -	.smp_secondary_init	= psci_secondary_init,
> > >  	.smp_boot_secondary	= psci_boot_secondary,
> > >  	.cpu_die		= psci_cpu_die,
> > >  };
> > 
> > The fix looks fine. Thanks.
> 
> Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.

You should not apply that to your tree as you don't have the rest of the
change from the arm-soc tree.  It needs to be applied to the merge of the
two trees i.e. when Linus merges the last of the two trees.

This is why I wrote "no action is required".

And you committed it to your tree without your Signed-off-by ...

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:50:22 +0100 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > > > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > > > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > > > arm-soc tree.
> > > > 
> > > > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > > > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> > > > 
> > > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> > > >  notifier
> > > > 
> > > > due to code movement.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> > > >  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > > >   */
> > > >  
> > > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/smp.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/of.h>
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> > > >  	return -ENODEV;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > -{
> > > > -	gic_secondary_init(0);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > > >  void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > > > -	.smp_secondary_init	= psci_secondary_init,
> > > >  	.smp_boot_secondary	= psci_boot_secondary,
> > > >  	.cpu_die		= psci_cpu_die,
> > > >  };
> > > 
> > > The fix looks fine. Thanks.
> > 
> > Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.
> 
> You should not apply that to your tree as you don't have the rest of the
> change from the arm-soc tree.  It needs to be applied to the merge of the
> two trees i.e. when Linus merges the last of the two trees.
> 
> This is why I wrote "no action is required".

I added the patch because it is very small and only affects psci_smp.c,
so it is not a problem for me to carry it in the xen-arm tree.
But I see your point, I'll remove it.

As a side note for the arm-soc maintainers in CC, even though I
proactively added the PSCI and the smp_init patches
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136716063717467&w=2) to linux-next
to make sure they get enough exposure for this merge window, I would
appreciate if you could pick them up in your tree. I think they should
to Linus via arm-soc.