From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:09:03 -0500 Subject: [GIT PULL] GIC DT binding support In-Reply-To: <201110201812.29202.arnd@arndb.de> References: <4E97A601.1020005@gmail.com> <201110201507.38722.arnd@arndb.de> <4EA03160.1050304@gmail.com> <201110201812.29202.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <4EA055AF.4030207@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/20/2011 11:12 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 20 October 2011, Rob Herring wrote: >> Arnd, >> >> On 10/20/2011 08:07 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Friday 14 October 2011, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> Please pull GIC device tree support. This is the first of 2 pull >>>> requests. You can ignore this one if there are no other dependencies on >>>> GIC DT support. >>>> >>>> This is based on rmk's for-next branch and v3.1-rc9. rc9 was needed for >>>> this dependency: >>> >>> I don't see the for-next branch in the history. Do you mean it requires >>> the for-next branch as well in order to actually build? >> >> Probably because it is buried by rc9 commits: >> >> git log v3.1-rc9..gic-dt > > Ah, I see them now. I should make sure I look more closely next time. > That definitely explains why I couldn't get this to merge into my > for-next branch cleanly. > >>> Can you be more specific so I can watch for the dependencies to >>> get upstream first? >>> >> >> I believe it conflicts with this commit in rmk/for-next: >> >> commit b166bc3be08b744d2f4b14921a1efee14906b383 >> Author: Will Deacon >> Date: Tue Aug 23 22:20:03 2011 +0100 >> >> ARM: 7061/1: gic: convert logical CPU numbers into physical numbers >> >> And this one in rmk/devel-stable: >> >> commit 254056f3b12563c11e6dbcfad2fbfce20a4f3302 >> Author: Colin Cross >> Date: Thu Feb 10 12:54:10 2011 -0800 >> >> ARM: gic: Use cpu pm notifiers to save gic state >> > > Ok. Conflicts are not the problem though, I can handle them and sfr can > handle them for linux-next, too. Real dependencies are the problem, > where you rely on a feature that is part of another tree. > >> BTW, Russell's for-next branch has been rebased. The conflict with the >> 1st commit is trivial, so I could rebase to merge of rmk/devel-stable >> and v3.1-rc9. >> >> I still need things from for-next for highbank. So perhaps I should send >> a pull request after Russell's tree goes in? > > Yes and no. You simply cannot ask me to merge a branch that is based on > top of Russell's for-next branch, since that is getting rebased. It is > also bad if the stuff doesn't have any linux-next exposure, so we should > try to find another way out. > > I've now rebased your tree on top of 3.1-rc9 plus the stable branches > from Russell's tree that I already have as dependencies in arm-soc/for-next > (devel-stable, smp, debug). This has caused no conflicts for me, but > that doesn't mean that it's correct. Please check that what I have > in arm-soc/dt/gic and arm-soc/highbank/soc actually works for you > and does not contain branches that you don't actually need. > dt/gic doesn't need Russell's debug branch, but highbank does. highbank/soc doesn't build. It needs Russell's l2x0 and io branches. l2x0 has been rebased recently, but the io branch seems to be stable (but not published externally). Rob