From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jamie@jamieiles.com (Jamie Iles)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:21:35 +0000
Subject: -next fails to boot as of today on S3C6410
In-Reply-To: <20111122193957.GH30583@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <20111122192741.GG30583@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <20111122193124.GB9581@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20111122193957.GH30583@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <20111122222135.GB7845@gallagher>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Mark,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:39:57PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:31:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:27:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > I've verified that this was introduced in the Russell's for-next, and
> > > bisection of that branch tells me that the offending commit is "ARM:
> > > vic: device tree binding" though an attempt to revert that in -next
> > > failed.  This is especially surprising as I have USE_OF turned off, I'm
> 
> > Thanks for the report.  I'll hold off pushing this stuff into the
> > devel-stable branch while Jamie looks into this so that we can fix
> > it and avoid having a bisection failure in this set of commits.
> 
> Thanks.  Note that I'm not 100% sure I believe the bisection result as
> reverting didn't fix the issue and I've stared at the code a bit without
> seeing anything that set off alarm bells.

No, you're right - this is the offending commit.  It actually needs 
this[1] fix and things should be okay.

Thomas, Rob, would one of you be able to apply this please?  I'm not 
sure if this would normally go through Grant or not.

Thanks,

Jamie

1. https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/10/186