linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c between commit b88a2595b6d8 ("perf/arm: Fix
armpmu_map_hw_event()") from Linus' tree and commit d9f966357b14 ("ARM:
7810/1: perf: Fix array out of bounds access in armpmu_map_hw_event()")
from the arm-current tree.

These are the same patch except for the return code (and the much more
comprehensive commit message in the arm-current tree version).  I fixed it up
(using the arm-current tree version - return -EINVAL instead of -ENOENT - I have
no way to guess which is right) and can carry the fix as necessary (no
action is required).

P.S. the version in Linus' tree has no Signed-off-by from the author.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in 
> arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c between commit b88a2595b6d8 ("perf/arm: Fix 
> armpmu_map_hw_event()") from Linus' tree and commit d9f966357b14 ("ARM: 
> 7810/1: perf: Fix array out of bounds access in armpmu_map_hw_event()") 
> from the arm-current tree.
> 
> These are the same patch except for the return code (and the much more 
> comprehensive commit message in the arm-current tree version).  I fixed 
> it up (using the arm-current tree version - return -EINVAL instead of 
> -ENOENT - I have no way to guess which is right) and can carry the fix 
> as necessary (no action is required).

-EINVAL would be the better/cleaner one, so when this gets merged upstream 
we should pick up Russell's version. It does not affect functionality.

Thanks,

	Ingo

linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mm/init.c between commit dbe67df4ba78 ("mm: enhance
free_reserved_area() to support poisoning memory with zero") from Linus'
tree and commit 319e0b4f02f7 ("ARM: mm: fix boot on SA1110 Assabet") from
the arm-current tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

diff --cc arch/arm/mm/init.c
index 6833cbe,0ecc43f..0000000
--- a/arch/arm/mm/init.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/init.c
@@@ -597,7 -600,7 +597,7 @@@ void __init mem_init(void
  
  #ifdef CONFIG_SA1111
  	/* now that our DMA memory is actually so designated, we can free it */
- 	free_reserved_area(__va(PHYS_PFN_OFFSET), swapper_pg_dir, -1, NULL);
 -	free_reserved_area(__va(PHYS_OFFSET), swapper_pg_dir, 0, NULL);
++	free_reserved_area(__va(PHYS_OFFSET), swapper_pg_dir, -1, NULL);
  #endif
  
  	free_highpages();

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1257 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig between commit 784a90c0a7d8 ("ARM i.MX: Merge
i.MX5 support into mach-imx") from Linus' tree and commit a092f2b15399
("ARM: 7291/1: cache: assume 64-byte L1 cachelines for ARMv7 CPUs") from
the arm-current tree.

The former removed the file and merged its contents into
arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig, so I removed it and applied the following
fixup patch - which I can carry as necessary.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:56:27 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: fix up for cache size assumed to be 64 bytes

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig |    1 -
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig
index 09f357b..4defb97 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig
@@ -87,7 +87,6 @@ config SOC_IMX35
 
 config SOC_IMX5
 	select CPU_V7
-	select ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_6
 	select MXC_TZIC
 	select ARCH_MXC_IOMUX_V3
 	select ARCH_MXC_AUDMUX_V2
-- 
1.7.9.rc0.23.g7e521

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

Hi Russell,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between (I think) commit 237c78beb8a9
("Merge branch 'depends/rmk/for-linus' into samsung/dt") from Linus' tree
and commit 588ac27d3419 ("ARM: 7273/1: EXYNOS: Fix build error which was
from common.c and old cpu.c") from the arm-current tree.

So this arm-current fi is superceded by the merge above that is now in
Linus' tree.

I fixed it up by ignoring the arm-current version.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

RE: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Kukjin Kim]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between (I think) commit 237c78beb8a9
> ("Merge branch 'depends/rmk/for-linus' into samsung/dt") from Linus' tree
> and commit 588ac27d3419 ("ARM: 7273/1: EXYNOS: Fix build error which was
> from common.c and old cpu.c") from the arm-current tree.
> 
> So this arm-current fi is superceded by the merge above that is now in
> Linus' tree.
> 
Oh, right. Now we don't need the commit 588ac27d3419.

Russell, could you please remove it in your tree?

> I fixed it up by ignoring the arm-current version.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Russell King]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:59:49AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between (I think) commit 237c78beb8a9
> > ("Merge branch 'depends/rmk/for-linus' into samsung/dt") from Linus' tree
> > and commit 588ac27d3419 ("ARM: 7273/1: EXYNOS: Fix build error which was
> > from common.c and old cpu.c") from the arm-current tree.
> > 
> > So this arm-current fi is superceded by the merge above that is now in
> > Linus' tree.
> > 
> Oh, right. Now we don't need the commit 588ac27d3419.
> 
> Russell, could you please remove it in your tree?

What the bloody hell is going on with this Samsung crap?  You send me
fixes, you put them in the patch system, then you decide you don't want
them?

What the hell are you doing?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

RE: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-current tree with Linus' tree

[Kukjin Kim]

Russell King wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 09:59:49AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-current tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between (I think) commit 237c78beb8a9
> > > ("Merge branch 'depends/rmk/for-linus' into samsung/dt") from Linus'
> tree
> > > and commit 588ac27d3419 ("ARM: 7273/1: EXYNOS: Fix build error which
> was
> > > from common.c and old cpu.c") from the arm-current tree.
> > >
> > > So this arm-current fi is superceded by the merge above that is now in
> > > Linus' tree.
> > >
> > Oh, right. Now we don't need the commit 588ac27d3419.
> >
> > Russell, could you please remove it in your tree?
> 
> What the bloody hell is going on with this Samsung crap?  You send me
> fixes, you put them in the patch system, then you decide you don't want
> them?
> 
Russell,

It breaks exynos in mainline when I submitted that and sent to patch system.
Then seems to be fixed after merging arm-soc tree into mainline by Arnd's
conflict resolution.

Then you moved that into your git-curr.

> What the hell are you doing?
> 
Hmm :(

Actually, it is required when I submitted that.
But as a result, sorry for bothering...

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.