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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c between commit 4a1c0e83bb4e
("ARM: OMAP2+: mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the mailbox
tree and commit 3b9b10151c68 ("ARM: OMAP4: hwmod data: Clean up the data
file") from the arm-soc tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

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

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c
index 4065962,d04b5e6..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c
@@@ -1862,22 -1573,6 +1574,17 @@@ static struct omap_hwmod_class omap44xx
  };
  
  /* mailbox */
 +static struct omap_mbox_dev_info omap44xx_mailbox_info[] = {
 +	{ .name = "mbox-ipu", .tx_id = 0, .rx_id = 1 },
 +	{ .name = "mbox-dsp", .tx_id = 3, .rx_id = 2 },
 +};
 +
 +static struct omap_mbox_pdata omap44xx_mailbox_attrs = {
 +	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE2,
 +	.info_cnt	= ARRAY_SIZE(omap44xx_mailbox_info),
 +	.info		= omap44xx_mailbox_info,
 +};
 +
- static struct omap_hwmod_irq_info omap44xx_mailbox_irqs[] = {
- 	{ .irq = 26 + OMAP44XX_IRQ_GIC_START },
- 	{ .irq = -1 }
- };
- 
  static struct omap_hwmod omap44xx_mailbox_hwmod = {
  	.name		= "mailbox",
  	.class		= &omap44xx_mailbox_hwmod_class,

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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1322 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:24:44 -0500 Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/21/2013 02:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 21 June 2013, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >>> I wonder if this mess is caused by the fact that I did the revert
> >>> instead of rebuilding our for-next and dropping the merge in the first
> >>> place.
> >>>
> >>> I'll rebuild our for-next (or maybe Arnd will beat me to it) before
> >>> next linux-next build, i.e. Sunday night my time.
> >>
> >> Could be, especially if some of the commits are the same in the reverted
> >> branch and newly merged branch as git might think that some merges have
> >> been already resolved the right way earlier.
> 
> Yes, please drop the particular mailbox branch that you were picking
> into linux-next. It was the previous framework which was dropped at the
> last minute during the 3.10 merge window in favor of new one still under
> its final development steps, so we will not be using any commits from
> that branch.  Sorry for the trouble on this one. The branch that Arnd
> took has some of the OMAP patches reworked in preparation for the
> newer one.

OK, I have removed the mailbox tree for now.  Let me know if you want it
to be back in again.
-- 
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 mailbox tree

[Anna, Suman]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1401 bytes --]

> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> [130620 23:14]:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c between commit 4a1c0e83bb4e ("ARM:
> OMAP2+:
> > mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the mailbox tree and commit
> > 82c5cde1c4b0 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Remove omap4 ocp2scp pdata") from the arm-
> soc
> > tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (removing the include of
> > linux/platform_data/omap_ocp2scp.h) and can carry the fix as necessary
> > (no action is required).
> 
> Thanks, that's the right fix as that header won't be needed any longer
> as we've made omap4 device tree only.
> 
> > That mailbox tree commit looks very similar to commit b8a7cf8e2b15 ("ARM:
> > OMAP2+: mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the arm-soc tree ...
> 
> The earlier mailbox branch was merged into arm-soc for a few weeks until
> we decided to drop it as Jassi is working on a more generic API. That was
> merged in commit 51b5f893, then reverted in commit b5c85186. The updated
> mailbox branch accounts for the generic API coming up from Jassi.
> 
> Suman, can you please check if Linux next has mailbox related files merged
> correctly?

Yes, they look good.

Regards
Suman
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

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

[Suman Anna]

Stephen,

On 06/21/2013 02:36 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 June 2013, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> I wonder if this mess is caused by the fact that I did the revert
>>> instead of rebuilding our for-next and dropping the merge in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>> I'll rebuild our for-next (or maybe Arnd will beat me to it) before
>>> next linux-next build, i.e. Sunday night my time.
>>
>> Could be, especially if some of the commits are the same in the reverted
>> branch and newly merged branch as git might think that some merges have
>> been already resolved the right way earlier.

Yes, please drop the particular mailbox branch that you were picking
into linux-next. It was the previous framework which was dropped at the
last minute during the 3.10 merge window in favor of new one still under
its final development steps, so we will not be using any commits from
that branch.  Sorry for the trouble on this one. The branch that Arnd
took has some of the OMAP patches reworked in preparation for the
newer one.

> 
> I already rebuilt the arm-soc tree before Stephen started with today's
> linux-next, so I think the conflict is elsewhere.
> 
> It's probably best if Suman Anna rebases the mailbox tree on top of
> the omap mailbox branch that I took.
> 

I will rebase the mailbox tree once we have the new patches from Jassi
finalized.

regards
Suman

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

[Jassi Brar]

On 21 June 2013 12:42, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
>
> Arnd pulled in tags/omap-for-v3.11/mailbox-signed, which is the branch
> that should get merged to the mainline tree while we're waiting for
> the generic mailbox framework from Jassi.
>
FYKI I, Suman and Loic have been co-ordinating offline. The generic
framework is almost there, Suman recently did the omap porting too,
Loic seems to be caught up with some other stuff. Lately we have been
joined by another developer LF.Tan to write the driver for a
not-yet-public IP.

cheers.

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

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 21 June 2013, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > I wonder if this mess is caused by the fact that I did the revert
> > instead of rebuilding our for-next and dropping the merge in the first
> > place.
> > 
> > I'll rebuild our for-next (or maybe Arnd will beat me to it) before
> > next linux-next build, i.e. Sunday night my time.
> 
> Could be, especially if some of the commits are the same in the reverted
> branch and newly merged branch as git might think that some merges have
> been already resolved the right way earlier.

I already rebuilt the arm-soc tree before Stephen started with today's
linux-next, so I think the conflict is elsewhere.

It's probably best if Suman Anna rebases the mailbox tree on top of
the omap mailbox branch that I took.

	Arnd

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

[Tony Lindgren]

* Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> [130621 00:07]:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> [130620 23:48]:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:26:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> >> > drivers/mailbox/Kconfig between commit a1824eaab70f ("mailbox: OMAP:
> >> > introduce mailbox framework") from the mailbox tree and commit
> >> > c869c75c16b3 ("mailbox/omap: move the OMAP mailbox framework to drivers")
> >> > from the arm-soc tree.
> >> >
> >> > I fixed it up (I suspect not properly - see below) and can carry the fix
> >> > as necessary (no action is required).
> >> >
> >> > It looks like we have two different versions of these changes in
> >> > linux-next now, so please clean it all up.  i.e. can I just drop the
> >> > mailbox tree now?
> >>
> >> OK, things went steeply downhill from here, so I went back and removed
> >> the mailbox tree ...
> >
> > I think Olof dropped the earlier version of the mailbox branch, and
> > remerged the updated mailbox branch. So if there was also yet another
> > mailbox branch being pulled into Linux next, then yes, dropping it is
> > the way to go.
> 
> No, I only reverted -- I didn't pull in any new branch.

Arnd pulled in tags/omap-for-v3.11/mailbox-signed, which is the branch
that should get merged to the mainline tree while we're waiting for
the generic mailbox framework from Jassi.
 
> I wonder if this mess is caused by the fact that I did the revert
> instead of rebuilding our for-next and dropping the merge in the first
> place.
> 
> I'll rebuild our for-next (or maybe Arnd will beat me to it) before
> next linux-next build, i.e. Sunday night my time.

Could be, especially if some of the commits are the same in the reverted
branch and newly merged branch as git might think that some merges have
been already resolved the right way earlier.

Regards,

Tony

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

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> [130620 23:48]:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:26:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
>> > drivers/mailbox/Kconfig between commit a1824eaab70f ("mailbox: OMAP:
>> > introduce mailbox framework") from the mailbox tree and commit
>> > c869c75c16b3 ("mailbox/omap: move the OMAP mailbox framework to drivers")
>> > from the arm-soc tree.
>> >
>> > I fixed it up (I suspect not properly - see below) and can carry the fix
>> > as necessary (no action is required).
>> >
>> > It looks like we have two different versions of these changes in
>> > linux-next now, so please clean it all up.  i.e. can I just drop the
>> > mailbox tree now?
>>
>> OK, things went steeply downhill from here, so I went back and removed
>> the mailbox tree ...
>
> I think Olof dropped the earlier version of the mailbox branch, and
> remerged the updated mailbox branch. So if there was also yet another
> mailbox branch being pulled into Linux next, then yes, dropping it is
> the way to go.

No, I only reverted -- I didn't pull in any new branch.

I wonder if this mess is caused by the fact that I did the revert
instead of rebuilding our for-next and dropping the merge in the first
place.

I'll rebuild our for-next (or maybe Arnd will beat me to it) before
next linux-next build, i.e. Sunday night my time.


-Olof

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

[Tony Lindgren]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> [130620 23:48]:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:26:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/mailbox/Kconfig between commit a1824eaab70f ("mailbox: OMAP:
> > introduce mailbox framework") from the mailbox tree and commit
> > c869c75c16b3 ("mailbox/omap: move the OMAP mailbox framework to drivers")
> > from the arm-soc tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I suspect not properly - see below) and can carry the fix
> > as necessary (no action is required).
> > 
> > It looks like we have two different versions of these changes in
> > linux-next now, so please clean it all up.  i.e. can I just drop the
> > mailbox tree now?
> 
> OK, things went steeply downhill from here, so I went back and removed
> the mailbox tree ...

I think Olof dropped the earlier version of the mailbox branch, and
remerged the updated mailbox branch. So if there was also yet another
mailbox branch being pulled into Linux next, then yes, dropping it is
the way to go.

Regards,

Tony

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

[Tony Lindgren]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> [130620 23:14]:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c between commit 4a1c0e83bb4e ("ARM: OMAP2+:
> mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the mailbox tree and commit
> 82c5cde1c4b0 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Remove omap4 ocp2scp pdata") from the arm-soc
> tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (removing the include of
> linux/platform_data/omap_ocp2scp.h) and can carry the fix as necessary
> (no action is required).

Thanks, that's the right fix as that header won't be needed any longer
as we've made omap4 device tree only.
 
> That mailbox tree commit looks very similar to commit b8a7cf8e2b15 ("ARM:
> OMAP2+: mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the arm-soc tree ...

The earlier mailbox branch was merged into arm-soc for a few weeks until
we decided to drop it as Jassi is working on a more generic API. That was
merged in commit 51b5f893, then reverted in commit b5c85186. The updated
mailbox branch accounts for the generic API coming up from Jassi.

Suman, can you please check if Linux next has mailbox related files merged
correctly?
 
> As an aside, the include of linux/usb/omap_control_usb.h into this file
> was removed by commit 608d19380c67 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Remove omap4 pdata for
> USB") in the arm-soc tree, but reintroduced by commit 435f4c6d5242
> ("Merge branch 'next/drivers' into for-next").

Yes omap_control_usb.h is no longer needed either.

Thanks,

Tony

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:26:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> drivers/mailbox/Kconfig between commit a1824eaab70f ("mailbox: OMAP:
> introduce mailbox framework") from the mailbox tree and commit
> c869c75c16b3 ("mailbox/omap: move the OMAP mailbox framework to drivers")
> from the arm-soc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I suspect not properly - see below) and can carry the fix
> as necessary (no action is required).
> 
> It looks like we have two different versions of these changes in
> linux-next now, so please clean it all up.  i.e. can I just drop the
> mailbox tree now?

OK, things went steeply downhill from here, so I went back and removed
the mailbox tree ...

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

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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3821 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
drivers/mailbox/Kconfig between commit a1824eaab70f ("mailbox: OMAP:
introduce mailbox framework") from the mailbox tree and commit
c869c75c16b3 ("mailbox/omap: move the OMAP mailbox framework to drivers")
from the arm-soc tree.

I fixed it up (I suspect not properly - see below) and can carry the fix
as necessary (no action is required).

It looks like we have two different versions of these changes in
linux-next now, so please clean it all up.  i.e. can I just drop the
mailbox tree now?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
index 438ea21,c8b5c13..0000000
--- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
@@@ -16,45 -16,38 +16,63 @@@ config PL320_MBO
  	  Management Engine, primarily for cpufreq. Say Y here if you want
  	  to use the PL320 IPCM support.
  
- config OMAP1_MBOX
-        tristate "OMAP1 Mailbox framework support"
-        depends on ARCH_OMAP1
-        help
-          Mailbox implementation for OMAP chips with hardware for
-          interprocessor communication involving DSP in OMAP1. Say Y here
-          if you want to use OMAP1 Mailbox framework support.
- 
- config OMAP2PLUS_MBOX
-        tristate "OMAP2+ Mailbox framework support"
-        depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
-        help
-          Mailbox implementation for OMAP family chips with hardware for
-          interprocessor communication involving DSP, IVA1.0 and IVA2 in
-          OMAP2/3; or IPU, IVA HD and DSP in OMAP4. Say Y here if you want
-          to use OMAP2+ Mailbox framework support.
- 
 +config DBX500_MBOX
 +	tristate "DBx500 Mailbox driver support"
 +	depends on ARCH_U8500
 +	help
 +	  Say Y here if you want to use DBx500 Mailbox driver support for
 +	  power coprocessor access on Ux500 and Ux540 families
 +
 +config MBOX_KFIFO_SIZE
 +       int "Mailbox kfifo default buffer size (bytes)"
 +       default 256
 +       help
 +         Specify the default size of mailbox's kfifo buffers (bytes).
 +         This can also be changed at runtime (via the mbox_kfifo_size
 +         module parameter).
 +
 +config MBOX_DATA_SIZE
 +	int "Mailbox associated data max size (bytes)"
 +	default 64 if DBX500_MBOX
 +	default 4
 +	help
 +	  Specify the default size of mailbox's associated data buffer
 +	  (bytes)
 +          This can also be changed at runtime (via the mbox_kfifo_size
 +          module parameter).
++
+ config OMAP_MBOX
+ 	tristate
+ 	help
+ 	  This option is selected by any OMAP architecture specific mailbox
+ 	  driver such as CONFIG_OMAP1_MBOX or CONFIG_OMAP2PLUS_MBOX. This
+ 	  enables the common OMAP mailbox framework code.
+ 
+ config OMAP1_MBOX
+ 	tristate "OMAP1 Mailbox framework support"
+ 	depends on ARCH_OMAP1
+ 	select OMAP_MBOX
+ 	help
+ 	  Mailbox implementation for OMAP chips with hardware for
+ 	  interprocessor communication involving DSP in OMAP1. Say Y here
+ 	  if you want to use OMAP1 Mailbox framework support.
+ 
+ config OMAP2PLUS_MBOX
+ 	tristate "OMAP2+ Mailbox framework support"
+ 	depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
+ 	select OMAP_MBOX
+ 	help
+ 	  Mailbox implementation for OMAP family chips with hardware for
+ 	  interprocessor communication involving DSP, IVA1.0 and IVA2 in
+ 	  OMAP2/3; or IPU, IVA HD and DSP in OMAP4/5. Say Y here if you
+ 	  want to use OMAP2+ Mailbox framework support.
+ 
+ config OMAP_MBOX_KFIFO_SIZE
+ 	int "Mailbox kfifo default buffer size (bytes)"
+ 	depends on OMAP2PLUS_MBOX || OMAP1_MBOX
+ 	default 256
+ 	help
+ 	  Specify the default size of mailbox's kfifo buffers (bytes).
+ 	  This can also be changed at runtime (via the mbox_kfifo_size
+ 	  module parameter).
  endif

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

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 934 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c between commit 4a1c0e83bb4e ("ARM: OMAP2+:
mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the mailbox tree and commit
82c5cde1c4b0 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Remove omap4 ocp2scp pdata") from the arm-soc
tree.

I fixed it up (removing the include of
linux/platform_data/omap_ocp2scp.h) and can carry the fix as necessary
(no action is required).

That mailbox tree commit looks very similar to commit b8a7cf8e2b15 ("ARM:
OMAP2+: mbox: remove dependencies with soc.h") from the arm-soc tree ...

As an aside, the include of linux/usb/omap_control_usb.h into this file
was removed by commit 608d19380c67 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Remove omap4 pdata for
USB") in the arm-soc tree, but reintroduced by commit 435f4c6d5242
("Merge branch 'next/drivers' into for-next").

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

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