From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:56:30 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: integrator: ensure ap_syscon_base is initialised when !CONFIG_MMU In-Reply-To: <20130131223417.GB19961@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1359556069-28289-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1359556069-28289-7-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <20130131223417.GB19961@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20130131225630.GB26523@quad.lixom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:34:17PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Linus, > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 08:21:04PM +0000, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > When running on Integrator/AP using atags, ap_syscon_base is initialised > > > in ->map_io, which isn't called for !MMU platforms. > > > > Oh hm. Haha apparently there is one guy with more bizarre hobbies > > than myself, you're making me feel un-geeky... ;-) > > Ha! Unfortunately, I only have one core-tile otherwise you could have one to > help you feel less left-out :) > > > > Instead, initialise the pointer in ->machine_init, as we do when booting > > > with device-tree. > > > > I was trying to figure out if there is some case where we need it earlier > > but apparently not so. > > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij > > Cheers! > > > Maybe you should send this oneliner directly to the ARM SoC > > people? > > [adding Olof and Arnd] Is it worth sending a pull request containing a > single patch, or can this patch just be picked directly? Definitely ok to just send the patch like this. However -- where was the breakage introduced, i.e. what should we apply the fix to? -Olof