From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DBC12C011F
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:04:43 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <1376427839.4255.10.camel@pasglop>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:03:59 +1000
In-Reply-To: <520A536C.3030600@arm.com>
References: <5208E2D3.7060005@arm.com> <3356439.a21MloFP7n@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <520A536C.3030600@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
 "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 "rob.herring@calxeda.com" <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

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.