Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the s5p tree

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Friday 16 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between commit 1d7233ac478a ("Merge branch
> 'next/soc-exynos5250-arch-gpio' into for-next") from the s5p tree and
> commit 853a0231e057 ("Merge branch 'samsung/soc' into next/soc2") from
> the arm-soc tree.
> 
> These merge commits both looks suspect, but I fixed it up as best I could
> (see below).

Right, both the arm-soc and the s5p tree merge the same commits and
come to different results. Kgene, please have a look and let me know
which of the three solutions is correct.

	Arnd

> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> index 4e1d0b7,e6cc50e..0000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> @@@ -593,6 -586,14 +593,13 @@@ static int __init exynos4_l2x0_cache_in
>         if (soc_is_exynos5250())
>                 return 0;
>   
>  -      int ret;
> +       ret = l2x0_of_init(L2_AUX_VAL, L2_AUX_MASK);
> +       if (!ret) {
> +               l2x0_regs_phys = virt_to_phys(&l2x0_saved_regs);
> +               clean_dcache_area(&l2x0_regs_phys, sizeof(unsigned long));
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> + 
>         if (!(__raw_readl(S5P_VA_L2CC + L2X0_CTRL) & 0x1)) {
>                 l2x0_saved_regs.phy_base = EXYNOS4_PA_L2CC;
>                 /* TAG, Data Latency Control: 2 cycles */