From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:54:24 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] drivers: bus: Move the OMAP interconnect driver to drivers/bus/ In-Reply-To: References: <1347614434-15938-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20120917215128.GF11762@atomide.com> <201209191857.57862.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20120920235423.GP28835@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Olof Johansson [120920 16:23]: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> On Monday 17 September 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>> * Santosh Shilimkar [120914 02:21]: > >>> > OMAP interconnect drivers are used for the interconnect error handling. > >>> > Since they are bus driver, lets move it to newly created drivers/bus. > >>> > > >>> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann > >>> > Cc: Tony Lindgren > >>> > Tested-by: Lokesh Vutla > >>> > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar > >>> > --- > >>> > Patch just moves OMAP interconnect drivers as is to the newly created > >>> > driver/bus/* directory. Patch is generated against "arm-soc/drivers/ocp2scp" > >>> > tree and test on all OMAP boards. > >>> > >>> Great, looks like this should not conflict with other > >>> omap patches queued, so Arnd should probably take this into > >>> the bus branch: > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren > >> > >> It turns out that the patch actually did conflict and we now have a broken > >> omap2plus_defconfig. The patch below seems to fix it, but please verify > >> that this makes sense. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > >> > > Looks correct. > > > > Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar > > I ended up applying something very similar to this and carried the > ACKs on that, but I broke it up in two pieces; one for the > drivers/ocp2scp branch to fix the irq numbers, and another to just > for-next to deal with the soc.h include file (since that should > probably have been fixed at branch merge time). > > Pushed out to for-next as well. OK thanks! Tony