From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:48:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20111024204824.GB32545@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20111025073946.019dca49157f5835e1394084@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:35930 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754485Ab1JXUsk (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:48:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111025073946.019dca49157f5835e1394084@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Marc Zyngier On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 07:39:46AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/common/gic.c between commits 292b293ceef2 ("ARM: gic: > consolidate PPI handling") and 28af690a284d ("ARM: gic, local timers: use > the request_percpu_irq() interface") from the arm tree and commits > 2071a2a4b8ed ("ARM: gic: add irq_domain support") and e3f14d321b34 ("ARM: > gic: add OF based initialization") from the arm-soc tree. > > I hacked it up (almost certainly incorrectly - see below). Someone will > have to provide Linus with a fix for this. Yes, this looks quite wrong: > @@@ -332,29 -304,12 +325,22 @@@ > writel_relaxed(0xffffffff, base + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + i * 4 / 32); > > /* > - * Limit number of interrupts registered to the platform maximum > - */ > - irq_limit = gic->irq_offset + gic_irqs; > - if (WARN_ON(irq_limit > NR_IRQS)) > - irq_limit = NR_IRQS; > - > - /* > * Setup the Linux IRQ subsystem. > */ > + for (i = 0; i < nrppis; i++) { > + int ppi = i + ppi_base; > + > + irq_set_percpu_devid(ppi); > + irq_set_chip_and_handler(ppi, &gic_chip, > + handle_percpu_devid_irq); > + irq_set_chip_data(ppi, gic); > + set_irq_flags(ppi, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_NOAUTOEN); > + } > + > - for (i = irq_start + nrppis; i < irq_limit; i++) { > - irq_set_chip_and_handler(i, &gic_chip, handle_fasteoi_irq); > - irq_set_chip_data(i, gic); > - set_irq_flags(i, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_PROBE); > + irq_domain_for_each_irq(domain, i, irq) { > + irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gic_chip, handle_fasteoi_irq); > + irq_set_chip_data(irq, gic); > + set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID | IRQF_PROBE); > } > > writel_relaxed(1, base + GIC_DIST_CTRL); We definitely need to sort this out before either tree gets pushed to Linus, otherwise we're going to end up annoying Linus... even if we provide a resolution. I suspect I should've taken the GIC OF stuff via my tree... -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: