From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP3: clockdomain: fix accidental duplicate registration Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:36:09 -0700 Message-ID: <20120716083609.GG6522@atomide.com> References: <87394wg97u.fsf@ti.com> <20120713064713.GI1122@atomide.com> <20120714085257.GB6522@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:20010 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752421Ab2GPIgO (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:36:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Kevin Hilman , Joe Woodward , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Paul Walmsley [120714 10:59]: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: >=20 > > The patch seems to produce a new warning against arm soc tree=20 > > next/cleanup branch: > >=20 > > warning: =E2=80=98mpu_3xxx_clkdm=E2=80=99 defined but not used > >=20 > > Paul, care to check if a change is needed for the arm soc tree > > next/cleanup branch version of this patch? >=20 > arm-soc next/cleanup branch doesn't include commit 16e5e2c4 ("ARM: OM= AP=20 > AM35x: clockdomain data: Fix clockdomain dependencies"). So that pat= ch=20 > won't apply there, and the copy of mach-omap2/clockdomains3xxx_data.c= in=20 > that branch is clean. Hmm well it seems that we should apply this fix into arm-soc next/clean= up branch if that's where the mismerge happened? It seems the same mismerg= e is there even without 16e5e2c4? You patch applies into arm-soc next/cleanup with fuzz: patching file arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.c patching file arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 82 (offset -4 lines). patching file arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomains3xxx_data.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 347 with fuzz 2 (offset -107 lines). So that's why I'm wondering if it needs some changes. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:36:09 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP3: clockdomain: fix accidental duplicate registration In-Reply-To: References: <87394wg97u.fsf@ti.com> <20120713064713.GI1122@atomide.com> <20120714085257.GB6522@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120716083609.GG6522@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Paul Walmsley [120714 10:59]: > On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > The patch seems to produce a new warning against arm soc tree > > next/cleanup branch: > > > > warning: ?mpu_3xxx_clkdm? defined but not used > > > > Paul, care to check if a change is needed for the arm soc tree > > next/cleanup branch version of this patch? > > arm-soc next/cleanup branch doesn't include commit 16e5e2c4 ("ARM: OMAP > AM35x: clockdomain data: Fix clockdomain dependencies"). So that patch > won't apply there, and the copy of mach-omap2/clockdomains3xxx_data.c in > that branch is clean. Hmm well it seems that we should apply this fix into arm-soc next/cleanup branch if that's where the mismerge happened? It seems the same mismerge is there even without 16e5e2c4? You patch applies into arm-soc next/cleanup with fuzz: patching file arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.c patching file arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 82 (offset -4 lines). patching file arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomains3xxx_data.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 347 with fuzz 2 (offset -107 lines). So that's why I'm wondering if it needs some changes. Regards, Tony