From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: OMAP build now completely broken in latest arm-soc Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:30:03 +0200 Message-ID: <50B3288B.2080609@ti.com> References: <20121125093704.GV3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121125140701.GW3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigD53D076C3645E79FEDF29125" Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:48122 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754488Ab2KZIaX (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 03:30:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Tony Lindgren , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap , arm@kernel.org, Russell King - ARM Linux --------------enigD53D076C3645E79FEDF29125 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-11-26 08:00, Olof Johansson wrote: > Tony, Tomi, >=20 > I've taken a stab at resolving these conflicts. They seem to come from > the cleanups combined with fixes that went upstream, and it seems like > we want to stick to the arm-soc versions for most of the conflicts. >=20 > I've pushed a merge of 3.7-rc7 into next/cleanup (and for-next) of > arm-soc, can you please check and see if this is the correct > resolution? As far as I can tell it is, but a double-check would be > appreciated. >=20 > Conflicts were in: >=20 > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c > arch/arm/plat-omap/i2c.c > drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.c >=20 > The hwmod data was trivial (include files). i2c was a little hairier, > a revert in mainline -- I presumed we're still good with our arm-soc > contents so I stuck close to what we had there. The DSS change seems > to be done completely differently in mainline, i.e. the surrounding > code is different to what we have in arm-soc today, and it looks like > the bugfix (3630-specific stuff) is taken care of in the version we > had. So I stuck to that. >=20 > But, please speak up ASAP if the above doesn't look correct, since we > want to fix it up before we merge much on top. The dss.c is resolved correctly. Tomi --------------enigD53D076C3645E79FEDF29125 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQsyiPAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71NN8QAKtuy38m35y3kLw3T8kQEVnM IrSfVhO/p/NcSwFxKX+6BNSaqinXXooacUGieVo346y+yR97gFXOERT84HVuL1rA rmsdABTtEm7UJvKtA9/zzhjGk5pV294qxaiOjGgz1qpk89NL3web2Jp1hsFPKKdL fQkUTXKExl+IvdmgRtoiD5FqvcbejfL/zyqwdPFQmgtB6CNNJfCxDXXoX7XbBQFD no3EY6L/Ifp3OoY+I3isuz6T8YudmChwJHACbtGjjAh95e0G9VUIGTlsAHpOx8HG 7UhLMSbMjWGiGBdkbyQgHbX+wm1t91y/ThmlJiK22dgi+gPNM4+vQLm5pr7/+n0t /krPYDTxAfqEfPkwSsj1Q0pQ1XFiRzgvvmuAdA1PbmvzoVQV6MHl/u+RP/tmBLN8 +SlklYF4W7ySvjmFbcBBPi4zF2kXI9zIEQqiPyPQMLwWbMkwWUU/i1Oc3jSAFE41 AmUuUgf4hkpO98/WqNA/f6wONaS5t2sRvyWVhevuxBoqAFN9jaxPJDbKwDu+d2XC 14LU7CL8OPmAwvNfHg+6eh7fOISXc66OTuxDtNIzAucW/zcD4PR5FfupKtc8kLcX S+TxYxB8c5M0tdkMvwDmimk6B/H904Q+Tk7oC6efdY3IzJUg4IlL5IvFois1A5s3 exBFV0Aan1WEP7U8FfBO =O1ID -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD53D076C3645E79FEDF29125-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:30:03 +0200 Subject: OMAP build now completely broken in latest arm-soc In-Reply-To: References: <20121125093704.GV3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121125140701.GW3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <50B3288B.2080609@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2012-11-26 08:00, Olof Johansson wrote: > Tony, Tomi, > > I've taken a stab at resolving these conflicts. They seem to come from > the cleanups combined with fixes that went upstream, and it seems like > we want to stick to the arm-soc versions for most of the conflicts. > > I've pushed a merge of 3.7-rc7 into next/cleanup (and for-next) of > arm-soc, can you please check and see if this is the correct > resolution? As far as I can tell it is, but a double-check would be > appreciated. > > Conflicts were in: > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c > arch/arm/plat-omap/i2c.c > drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.c > > The hwmod data was trivial (include files). i2c was a little hairier, > a revert in mainline -- I presumed we're still good with our arm-soc > contents so I stuck close to what we had there. The DSS change seems > to be done completely differently in mainline, i.e. the surrounding > code is different to what we have in arm-soc today, and it looks like > the bugfix (3630-specific stuff) is taken care of in the version we > had. So I stuck to that. > > But, please speak up ASAP if the above doesn't look correct, since we > want to fix it up before we merge much on top. The dss.c is resolved correctly. Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 899 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: