linux-next: manual merge of the trivial tree with the ux500-core tree

linux-next: manual merge of the trivial tree with the ux500-core tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

Hi Jiri,

Today's linux-next merge of the trivial tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-u300/gpio.c between commit 4a5a6e2804a3 ("mach-u300:
rewrite gpio driver, move to drivers/gpio") from the ux500-core tree and
commit b0c3af5ef0d7 ("arm: mach-u300/gpio: Fix mem_region resource size
miscalculations") from the trivial tree.

The former removed the file updated by the latter.  These updates should
be applied to drivers/gpio/u300-gpio.c, now.  Joe, maybe you could update
your patch and send it to Linus Walleij.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the trivial tree with the ux500-core tree

[Linus Walleij]

2011/4/29 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>:

> Today's linux-next merge of the trivial tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-u300/gpio.c between commit 4a5a6e2804a3 ("mach-u300:
> rewrite gpio driver, move to drivers/gpio") from the ux500-core tree and
> commit b0c3af5ef0d7 ("arm: mach-u300/gpio: Fix mem_region resource size
> miscalculations") from the trivial tree.
>
> The former removed the file updated by the latter.  These updates should
> be applied to drivers/gpio/u300-gpio.c, now.  Joe, maybe you could update
> your patch and send it to Linus Walleij.

I rewrote the driver completely so likely it will rather be dropped, but
please check! I'll be happy to carry any patches.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the trivial tree with the ux500-core tree

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Linus Walleij wrote:

> > Today's linux-next merge of the trivial tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-u300/gpio.c between commit 4a5a6e2804a3 ("mach-u300:
> > rewrite gpio driver, move to drivers/gpio") from the ux500-core tree and
> > commit b0c3af5ef0d7 ("arm: mach-u300/gpio: Fix mem_region resource size
> > miscalculations") from the trivial tree.
> >
> > The former removed the file updated by the latter.  These updates should
> > be applied to drivers/gpio/u300-gpio.c, now.  Joe, maybe you could update
> > your patch and send it to Linus Walleij.
> 
> I rewrote the driver completely so likely it will rather be dropped, but
> please check! I'll be happy to carry any patches.

Seems to me that all the calls to request_mem_region() and 
release_mem_region() still need the resource_size() fixup even in the new 
driver.

Either I can carry the current patch in my tree and let Linus resolve the 
conflict, or I can drop it from my tree and you take the fixes through 
your tree. Let me know what you prefer.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the trivial tree with the ux500-core tree

[Linus Walleij]

2011/5/5 Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> I rewrote the driver completely so likely it will rather be dropped, but
>> please check! I'll be happy to carry any patches.
>
> Seems to me that all the calls to request_mem_region() and
> release_mem_region() still need the resource_size() fixup even in the new
> driver.

OK I went in and tweaked the patch like this:

	if (request_mem_region(gpio->memres->start,
			       resource_size(gpio->memres),
			       "GPIO Controller")
	    == NULL) {
		dev_err(gpio->dev, "could not reserve GPIO memory region\n");
		err = -ENODEV;
		goto err_no_ioregion;
	}
(...)
err_no_ioremap:
	release_mem_region(gpio->memres->start, resource_size(gpio->memres));
(...)
	release_mem_region(gpio->memres->start,
			   resource_size(gpio->memres));

It'll appear in the next tree tomorrow or so. OK?

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the trivial tree with the ux500-core tree

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 6 May 2011, Linus Walleij wrote:

> 2011/5/5 Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>
> >> I rewrote the driver completely so likely it will rather be dropped, but
> >> please check! I'll be happy to carry any patches.
> >
> > Seems to me that all the calls to request_mem_region() and
> > release_mem_region() still need the resource_size() fixup even in the new
> > driver.
> 
> OK I went in and tweaked the patch like this:
> 
> 	if (request_mem_region(gpio->memres->start,
> 			       resource_size(gpio->memres),
> 			       "GPIO Controller")
> 	    == NULL) {
> 		dev_err(gpio->dev, "could not reserve GPIO memory region\n");
> 		err = -ENODEV;
> 		goto err_no_ioregion;
> 	}
> (...)
> err_no_ioremap:
> 	release_mem_region(gpio->memres->start, resource_size(gpio->memres));
> (...)
> 	release_mem_region(gpio->memres->start,
> 			   resource_size(gpio->memres));
> 
> It'll appear in the next tree tomorrow or so. OK?

Thanks. I have dropped Joe's patch from my queue now.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs