From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the gpio tree Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:15:18 -0800 Message-ID: <20120301201518.GB18901@atomide.com> References: <20120301164001.77a063ceed2deaf37cf68e3c@canb.auug.org.au> <201203011228.33983.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:29654 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757405Ab2CAUP0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2012 15:15:26 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201203011228.33983.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tarun Kanti DebBarma , Grant Likely * Arnd Bergmann [120301 03:57]: > On Thursday 01 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got conflicts in > > arch/arm/mach-omap1/gpio16xx.c between commit ab985f0f7c2c ("gpio/omap: > > cleanup omap_gpio_mod_init function") from the gpio tree and commit > > 63325ff235de ("ARM: OMAP1: Move 16xx GPIO system clock to platform init > > code") from the arm-soc tree. > > > > OK, I can't decide which is correct here - the former adds this code > > inside the loop (even though it seems to not depend on anything in the > > loop) and the latter adds it before. I have used the former (but am > > happy to be corrected). And both commits remove the code in > > drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c. > > Right, having the code outside of the loop seems correct to me, too. > > Grant, I would suggest that I resolve this by merging the the > omap/gpio/runtime-pm-cleanup branch (f86bcc3) that is in your > tree into the arm-soc tree as a dependency for the omap1 stuff, > with the resolution below. For gpio16xx.c the resolution is to use the version from ab985f0f7c2c, so below looks good to me. Regards, Tony > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap1/gpio16xx.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap1/gpio16xx.c > @@@ -218,17 -225,34 +225,34 @@@ static int __init omap16xx_gpio_init(vo > if (!cpu_is_omap16xx()) > return -EINVAL; > > + /* > + * Enable system clock for GPIO module. > + * The CAM_CLK_CTRL *is* really the right place. > + */ > + omap_writel(omap_readl(ULPD_CAM_CLK_CTRL) | 0x04, > + ULPD_CAM_CLK_CTRL); > + > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(omap16xx_gpio_dev); i++) > - platform_device_register(omap16xx_gpio_dev[i]); > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(omap16xx_gpio_dev); i++) { > + pdev = omap16xx_gpio_dev[i]; > + pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data; > + > + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); > + if (unlikely(!res)) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Invalid mem resource.\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > > - gpio_bank_count = ARRAY_SIZE(omap16xx_gpio_dev); > + base = ioremap(res->start, resource_size(res)); > + if (unlikely(!base)) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "ioremap failed.\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + > + __raw_writel(SYSCONFIG_WORD, base + OMAP1610_GPIO_SYSCONFIG); > + iounmap(base); > + > - /* > - * Enable system clock for GPIO module. > - * The CAM_CLK_CTRL *is* really the right place. > - */ > - omap_writel(omap_readl(ULPD_CAM_CLK_CTRL) | 0x04, > - ULPD_CAM_CLK_CTRL); > - > + platform_device_register(omap16xx_gpio_dev[i]); > + } > > return 0; > }