From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 20:24:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v7 08/13] ARM: unify MMU/!MMU addruart calls In-Reply-To: References: <1431769465-26867-1-git-send-email-stefan@agner.ch> <2419398.cbLWQC7K5f@wuerfel> Message-ID: <5548280.7uBnLuun8k@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 19 May 2015 18:06:53 Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-05-19 13:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 May 2015 13:23:22 Stefan Agner wrote: > >> On 2015-05-19 12:16, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > >> Not sure how we can deal with the EFM32 vs. IMX changes... Patches 08-10 > >> has no dependencies on the clock changes which Thomas merged. They could > >> go through whatever EFM32 is merged normally (last time Arnd directly > >> merged from Uwe), and then Shawn could base the rest of the changes on > >> that too? > > > > Do you have a dependency on patch 10 (the one for EFM32) in your later > > patches? > > Unfortunately, there is a dependency on that patch: I change the default > of UNCOMPRESS_INCLUDE to debug/uncompress.h for all ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M > platforms. Without that patch, it would default to mach/uncompress.h, > which does not exist for MACH_MXC/SOC_VF610. An easy approach would be to list both ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M and EFM32 in the UNCOMPRESS_INCLUDE option initially, and then follow-up with a patch that converts the three other platforms (efm32, stm32 and lpc18xx) to ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M and also change the UNCOMPRESS_INCLUDE statement. Note that I've already added both stm32 and lpc18xx to the UNCOMPRESS_INCLUDE list in the next/soc branch. > > If not, you can send the other ones to Shawn, so I pull them as > > a branch, and then I apply that on top of the merges. I have also > > merged two other ARMv7M platforms for 4.2 now (both in next/soc), > > so we should do the same change for those as well, and I'd rather > > apply a patch for that, than merge a branch that is based on > > next/soc. > > I guess, in that case, you need to take the others too? (08/09?) I'm fine with that, too. If Shawn thinks the patches are ok, you can just send all patches you want me to apply in arm-soc based on the appropriate branches (next/soc, next/dt and next/defconfig, I presume), and I'll apply them this time. In the future, you should send all patches to Shawn though. Arnd