From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:27:25 -0700 Subject: [PATCHv1 for soc 4/5] arm: Add v7_invalidate_l1 to cache-v7.S In-Reply-To: <20130128104552.GB6073@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> References: <1359075633-13502-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <1359075633-13502-5-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <51020D20.60505@wwwdotorg.org> <20130128104552.GB6073@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <5106B4FD.4030108@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/28/2013 03:45 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2013-01-24 20:42:08, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 01/24/2013 05:00 PM, dinguyen at altera.com wrote: >>> From: Dinh Nguyen >>> >>> mach-socfpga is another platform that needs to use >>> v7_invalidate_l1 to bringup additional cores. There was a comment that >>> the ideal place for v7_invalidate_l1 should be in arm/mm/cache-v7.S >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/headsmp.S b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/headsmp.S >> >>> -ENTRY(v7_invalidate_l1) >>> - mov r0, #0 >> >> Unfortunately, there's a patch in the Tegra tree for 3.9 that moves that >> function from headsmp.S to reset-handler.S, so this patch will conflict. >> How do you want to handle that? > > Drop the patch from Tegra tree and merge this one there? Having three > copies of code is not nice to start with, no matter where it is... Well, I guess for other reasons rebasing the Tegra tree is useful for a few dependencies, so I'll drop that part of the patch which moves v7_invalidate_l1() from one file to another, so there shouldn't be any conflicts, and you can feel free to take this series through whatever tree you want. I haven't tested this patch yet though, to see whether the slight differences in the code in your patch mentioned in the other sub-thread affect Tegra at all. Hopefully I can test this later today.