linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
drivers/macintosh/mediabay.c between commit
7ad963b103d3863b1161c59f3e65a435979804ed ("ide-pmac: media-bay support
fixes (take 4)") from the ide tree and commit
9a24729d8aeef967eac7af71c6a69edc83d06558 ("macintosh/media bay: Convert
semaphore to mutex") from the powerpc tree.

I just applied the up/down -> mutex_unlock/mutex_lock change to the ide
tree version.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 23:07 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
> drivers/macintosh/mediabay.c between commit
> 7ad963b103d3863b1161c59f3e65a435979804ed ("ide-pmac: media-bay support
> fixes (take 4)") from the ide tree and commit
> 9a24729d8aeef967eac7af71c6a69edc83d06558 ("macintosh/media bay: Convert
> semaphore to mutex") from the powerpc tree.
> 
> I just applied the up/down -> mutex_unlock/mutex_lock change to the ide
> tree version.


It doesn't look like the IDE patches change the locking at all, so the
semaphore to mutex change should still be safe every with the IDE
changes.

>From an organizational prospective, I think it makes sense for the IDE
changes to go on top of the powerpc.git mediabay changes .. Since the
most current mediabay driver is in the powerpc.git AFAIK.

Daniel

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

Hi,

On Monday 07 July 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
> drivers/macintosh/mediabay.c between commit
> 7ad963b103d3863b1161c59f3e65a435979804ed ("ide-pmac: media-bay support
> fixes (take 4)") from the ide tree and commit
> 9a24729d8aeef967eac7af71c6a69edc83d06558 ("macintosh/media bay: Convert
> semaphore to mutex") from the powerpc tree.

Since I haven't heard back from Ben [1] on ide-pmac/media-bay IRQ issue
I took another look at ide-pmac patches and I think that it should be
possible to rework them in such way that consecutive ide patches (> 100)
won't depend on "ide-pmac: media-bay support fixes (take 4)" patch.

This would allow us to re-schedule it to 2.6.28 (which is probably what
we want because 2.6.26 is probably just around the corner and we will be
pretty busy with 2.6.27 merge window soon).  Ben, what's your opinion?

[1] which doesn't surprise me given his new responsibilities ;)

Thanks,
Bart

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 21:01 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> Since I haven't heard back from Ben [1] on ide-pmac/media-bay IRQ issue
> I took another look at ide-pmac patches and I think that it should be
> possible to rework them in such way that consecutive ide patches (> 100)
> won't depend on "ide-pmac: media-bay support fixes (take 4)" patch.
> 
> This would allow us to re-schedule it to 2.6.28 (which is probably what
> we want because 2.6.26 is probably just around the corner and we will be
> pretty busy with 2.6.27 merge window soon).  Ben, what's your opinion?
> 
> [1] which doesn't surprise me given his new responsibilities ;)

That and I just moved house... been hectic lately.

I'll give another shot at the IRQ issues early next week, and if it
still doesn't work, we'll postpone.

Cheers,
Ben.

linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

Hi Paul, Ben,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
arch/powerpc/include/asm/dcr-regs.h between commit
6fbc779c03591ee536fef9efb7d7e20f281d0b5c ("ibm_newemac: Fix EMAC soft
reset on 460EX/GT") from Linus' tree and commit
fbcc4bacee30cad4e4a13d05492a9ed0c9c3e8c7 ("ibm_newemac: MAL support for
PowerPC 405EZ") from the powerpc tree.

Just overlapping additions.  I fixed it up by taking both additions.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

Hi Paul, Ben,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
drivers/net/ibm_newemac/core.h between commit
6fbc779c03591ee536fef9efb7d7e20f281d0b5c ("ibm_newemac: Fix EMAC soft
reset on 460EX/GT") from Linus' tree and commit
b68d185ab12b1fc8000432c5d5ab5404d4788b4c ("ibm_newemac: Allow the "no
flow control" EMAC feature to work") from the powerpc tree.

Just overlapping additions.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --]

Hi Paul, Ben,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
arch/powerpc/Kconfig between commit
4e491d14f2506b218d678935c25a7027b79178b1 ("ftrace: support for PowerPC")
from the ftrace tree and commit 3affedc4e1ce837033b6c5e9289d2ce2f5a62d31
("powerpc/dma: implement new dma_*map*_attrs() interfaces") from the
powerpc tree.

The former commit moved the "select HAVE_OPROFILE" to the bottom of the
"config PPC" list (for no reason that I can fathom) while the latter
added another select.  Simple fixup.  I can carry it.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi Paul, Ben,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig between commit
> 4e491d14f2506b218d678935c25a7027b79178b1 ("ftrace: support for PowerPC")
> from the ftrace tree and commit 3affedc4e1ce837033b6c5e9289d2ce2f5a62d31
> ("powerpc/dma: implement new dma_*map*_attrs() interfaces") from the
> powerpc tree.
>
> The former commit moved the "select HAVE_OPROFILE" to the bottom of the
> "config PPC" list (for no reason that I can fathom) while the latter
> added another select.  Simple fixup.  I can carry it.

I heard someone mention that they try to keep the configs in alphabetical
order. I did the move of OPROFILE for just that reason. I should have said
so in the change log. Oh well.

-- Steve

linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c between commit
4eac6a8b17ce5ebe66eb94b6a0b43aa3a2bf7ea6 ("i2c-mpc: Convert to an
of_platform driver") from the i2c tree and commits
22fb7d9be593181e2f779cf7a8421703a6be713b ("[POWERPC] fsl: Add warning for
unrecognized I2C nodes in the device tree"),
64f9b5ee17ee7974d7cc58d75221432d86960ba3 ("[POWERPC] fsl: Add CS4270 i2c
data to fsl_soc.c") and e026892c85571e12f11abffde5a90bcc704d663e
("[POWERPC] fsl: Update fsl_soc to use cell-index property of I2C nodes")
from the powerpc tree.

The changes from the powerpc tree modify code that the i2c tree removes.
I used the i2c tree's version, but someone should check the result.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:39:05PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c between commit
> 4eac6a8b17ce5ebe66eb94b6a0b43aa3a2bf7ea6 ("i2c-mpc: Convert to an
> of_platform driver") from the i2c tree and commits

It probably would have been better for this patch to go in via the
PowerPC tree.  It only touches powerpc-specific i2c code, not any i2c
core code.  There are quite a few MPCxxxx ports which use this driver,
I'd be happier to see it dropped from the i2c tree and merged in via
either Kumar or myself.

I'd also like to see some acks from people who have tested this patch
before it goes in.  (I'm just as guilty here; I'll apply it and test it
to my tree tomorrow).

g.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Jon Smirl]

On 7/3/08, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:39:05PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>  > Hi Paul,
>  >
>  > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
>  > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c between commit
>  > 4eac6a8b17ce5ebe66eb94b6a0b43aa3a2bf7ea6 ("i2c-mpc: Convert to an
>  > of_platform driver") from the i2c tree and commits
>
>
> It probably would have been better for this patch to go in via the
>  PowerPC tree.  It only touches powerpc-specific i2c code, not any i2c
>  core code.  There are quite a few MPCxxxx ports which use this driver,
>  I'd be happier to see it dropped from the i2c tree and merged in via
>  either Kumar or myself.
>
>  I'd also like to see some acks from people who have tested this patch
>  before it goes in.  (I'm just as guilty here; I'll apply it and test it
>  to my tree tomorrow).

I'm using it in my system. It doesn't change the function of the i2c
controller, only how drivers get loaded. So if you boot and your
devices are there it is working.

Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
essentially unchanged.

I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
see it get merged.


>
>
>  g.
>
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
> the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
> into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
> essentially unchanged.
> 
> I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
> see it get merged.

Me too, but it is used by some of the mpc8xxx platforms too, so I'd like
to see an ack from one of those users also.

Cheers,
g.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Grant Likely]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
>> the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
>> into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
>> essentially unchanged.
>>
>> I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
>> see it get merged.
>
> Me too, but it is used by some of the mpc8xxx platforms too, so I'd like
> to see an ack from one of those users also.

Okay, I've tested it on my board.  All looks good to me.  I'd prefer
to hear back from one of the Freescale folks, but on a second reading
I think it is pretty safe.  I'll make sure any merge conflicts are
resolved.

Jean, is it okay with you to drop it from your tree and merge it through mine?

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Jean Delvare]

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:54:26 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >> Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
> >> the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
> >> into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
> >> essentially unchanged.
> >>
> >> I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
> >> see it get merged.
> >
> > Me too, but it is used by some of the mpc8xxx platforms too, so I'd like
> > to see an ack from one of those users also.
> 
> Okay, I've tested it on my board.  All looks good to me.  I'd prefer
> to hear back from one of the Freescale folks, but on a second reading
> I think it is pretty safe.  I'll make sure any merge conflicts are
> resolved.
> 
> Jean, is it okay with you to drop it from your tree and merge it through mine?

Sure, no problem. It's done now, the patch is yours.

-- 
Jean Delvare

linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
drivers/macintosh/mediabay.c between commit
3fdba626506365e3aaf49140632120cd9156c2e8 ("ide-pmac: media-bay support
fixes (take 3)") from the ide tree and commit
9a24729d8aeef967eac7af71c6a69edc83d06558 ("macintosh/media bay: Convert
semaphore to mutex") from the powerpc tree.

I used the version from the ide tree but with the down/up ->
mutex_lock/mutex_unlock changes applied.  It may be worth a check to make
sure I got it right.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]