[GIT PULL] Broadcom SoC changes for 4.2

[arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)]

On Wednesday 20 May 2015 14:05:35 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 20/05/15 13:59, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 May 2015 15:34:13 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >>  arch/arm/include/asm/vfp.h          |   9 ++
> >>  arch/arm/mach-bcm/Makefile          |   7 +-
> >>  arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_headsmp.S |  23 ++++
> >>  arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_pmb.c     | 221 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_smp.c     | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_smp.h     |   9 ++
> >>  arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c            |  13 +++
> >>  include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h         |  76 +++++++++++++
> >>
> > 
> > And taken out again, sorry.
> 
> No problem, Rafal reminded me of a patch I forgot to submit earlier, so
> I will take that as an opportunity to re-do this pull request.
> 
> > 
> > I got a build error in include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h and that triggered me to take
> > a closer look. I tried to fix up the trivial error first, but then noticed
> > several other things wrong with bcm63xx_pmb.h:
> 
> What kind of build error? Do you have it handy?

I sent it to you on IRC earlier, here is the full error log:

/git/arm-soc/include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h: In function '__bpcm_do_op':
/git/arm-soc/include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h:39:12: error: 'EIO' undeclared (first use in this function)
    return -EIO;
            ^
/git/arm-soc/include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h:39:12: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
/git/arm-soc/include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h:42:12: error: 'ETIMEDOUT' undeclared (first use in this function)
    return -ETIMEDOUT;
            ^
In file included from /git/arm-soc/arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_pmb.c:15:0:
/git/arm-soc/include/linux/bcm63xx_pmb.h:48:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]

This is fixed by including linux/errno.h in the header.

> > - it is in include/linux/ where it clearly does not belong, as no other component
> >   should be including it. Even the function documentation in there mentions that
> >   one must hold the pmb_lock before calling it, and that is defined statically
> >   arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_pmb.c, so it's impossible for other code to use.
> >   Just move it all into bcm63xx_pmb.c.
> 
> This header will later be used by the bcm63138 reset controller, and I
> thought I had explained the reasoning behind that in either the commit
> message or cover letter, I will make sure the commit message explains it.

I see. I still think it's a bit rude to place this header in the top-level
include/linux directory though. I realize there are a lot of other headers
like this, but I'm trying not to add too many more.

Maybe a lesser evil would be to put the reset driver into
arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm63xx_pmb.c as well?

How big is it? And is there anything else besides that driver which would
need these functions?

> The lock issue is not much of a problem since we do not support CPU
> hotplug and the reset controller subsystem is initialized later so there
> is no possibility for these two pieces of code to conflict.

Ok

	Arnd