From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: OMAP build now completely broken in latest arm-soc Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:37:07 -0800 Message-ID: <20121126173707.GI5279@atomide.com> References: <20121125093704.GV3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121125140701.GW3332@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-04-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.74]:40260 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756708Ab2KZRhN (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:37:13 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Tomi Valkeinen , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap , arm@kernel.org, Russell King - ARM Linux * Olof Johansson [121125 22:02]: > Hi, > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 05:56:58AM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > >> wrote: > >> > Not much more to say... > >> > > >> > arch/arm/plat-omap/i2c.c:35:1: error: expected identifier or '(' before '<<' token > >> > >> Hmm. In for-next, line 35 is a blank line. > >> > >> Could this be because of a merge conflict in your local version? This > >> is one of the files that has conflicts with mainline right now; I'll > >> look to see if we can resolve those in our tree later today. > > > > Hmm, it looks like a merge conflict which didn't get fixed up... and > > looking at it, it's beyond what I'd call trivial to fix. > > > > So I'll shut down the build system until that can be resolved properly; > > as OMAP is effectively unbuildable there's not much point it running the > > builds. > > Tony, Tomi, > > I've taken a stab at resolving these conflicts. They seem to come from > the cleanups combined with fixes that went upstream, and it seems like > we want to stick to the arm-soc versions for most of the conflicts. > > I've pushed a merge of 3.7-rc7 into next/cleanup (and for-next) of > arm-soc, can you please check and see if this is the correct > resolution? As far as I can tell it is, but a double-check would be > appreciated. > > Conflicts were in: > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c > arch/arm/plat-omap/i2c.c > drivers/video/omap2/dss/dss.c > > The hwmod data was trivial (include files). i2c was a little hairier, > a revert in mainline -- I presumed we're still good with our arm-soc > contents so I stuck close to what we had there. The DSS change seems > to be done completely differently in mainline, i.e. the surrounding > code is different to what we have in arm-soc today, and it looks like > the bugfix (3630-specific stuff) is taken care of in the version we > had. So I stuck to that. Looks like that i2c revert probably needs a fixup patch as we still don't have the prerequisites merged. Anyways, the fixup should be done in mach-omap2/i2c.c instead of plat-omap/i2c.c, so your merge fix is OK. > But, please speak up ASAP if the above doesn't look correct, since we > want to fix it up before we merge much on top. That's good, thanks. Regards, Tony