From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:03:59 +1000 Message-ID: <1376427839.4255.10.camel@pasglop> References: <5208E2D3.7060005@arm.com> <3356439.a21MloFP7n@vostro.rjw.lan> <520A536C.3030600@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <520A536C.3030600@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Viresh Kumar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 16:40 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > There seems to be conflict in the new function "of_get_cpu_node" added. > PowerPC also defines the same function name. Further microblaze and > openrisc declares it(can be removed) but doesn't define it. > To fix this: > 1. I can rename the newly added function to something different like > `of_get_cpunode` or > 2. If of_* namespace should be used by only OF/FDT and not by any > architecture specific code, then the arch specific version can be > renamed to some thing like arch_of_get_cpu_node. > Also most of the calls to arch specific function can be moved to > generic code. > > Let me know your thoughts. What is your new function about ? Does it perform the same job as the one in powerpc ? If yes, make sure you have the same signature and either copy the powerpc one over to a generic place or make the generic one weak if you don't want the powerpc thread counting logic. Cheers, Ben.