From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the s5p tree Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:26:36 +0000 Message-ID: <201203160826.36287.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120316174546.5121be30a86c2937579bd3f5@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:56387 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965186Ab2CPI0k (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:26:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120316174546.5121be30a86c2937579bd3f5@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim On Friday 16 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between commit 1d7233ac478a ("Merge branch > 'next/soc-exynos5250-arch-gpio' into for-next") from the s5p tree and > commit 853a0231e057 ("Merge branch 'samsung/soc' into next/soc2") from > the arm-soc tree. > > These merge commits both looks suspect, but I fixed it up as best I could > (see below). Right, both the arm-soc and the s5p tree merge the same commits and come to different results. Kgene, please have a look and let me know which of the three solutions is correct. Arnd > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > > diff --cc arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > index 4e1d0b7,e6cc50e..0000000 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > @@@ -593,6 -586,14 +593,13 @@@ static int __init exynos4_l2x0_cache_in > if (soc_is_exynos5250()) > return 0; > > - int ret; > + ret = l2x0_of_init(L2_AUX_VAL, L2_AUX_MASK); > + if (!ret) { > + l2x0_regs_phys = virt_to_phys(&l2x0_saved_regs); > + clean_dcache_area(&l2x0_regs_phys, sizeof(unsigned long)); > + return 0; > + } > + > if (!(__raw_readl(S5P_VA_L2CC + L2X0_CTRL) & 0x1)) { > l2x0_saved_regs.phy_base = EXYNOS4_PA_L2CC; > /* TAG, Data Latency Control: 2 cycles */ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:26:36 +0000 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the s5p tree In-Reply-To: <20120316174546.5121be30a86c2937579bd3f5@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20120316174546.5121be30a86c2937579bd3f5@canb.auug.org.au> Message-ID: <201203160826.36287.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 16 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between commit 1d7233ac478a ("Merge branch > 'next/soc-exynos5250-arch-gpio' into for-next") from the s5p tree and > commit 853a0231e057 ("Merge branch 'samsung/soc' into next/soc2") from > the arm-soc tree. > > These merge commits both looks suspect, but I fixed it up as best I could > (see below). Right, both the arm-soc and the s5p tree merge the same commits and come to different results. Kgene, please have a look and let me know which of the three solutions is correct. Arnd > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr at canb.auug.org.au > > diff --cc arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > index 4e1d0b7,e6cc50e..0000000 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > @@@ -593,6 -586,14 +593,13 @@@ static int __init exynos4_l2x0_cache_in > if (soc_is_exynos5250()) > return 0; > > - int ret; > + ret = l2x0_of_init(L2_AUX_VAL, L2_AUX_MASK); > + if (!ret) { > + l2x0_regs_phys = virt_to_phys(&l2x0_saved_regs); > + clean_dcache_area(&l2x0_regs_phys, sizeof(unsigned long)); > + return 0; > + } > + > if (!(__raw_readl(S5P_VA_L2CC + L2X0_CTRL) & 0x1)) { > l2x0_saved_regs.phy_base = EXYNOS4_PA_L2CC; > /* TAG, Data Latency Control: 2 cycles */