Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1351303 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-07 05:10 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-08 17:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 12 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-03-07 05:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2016-03-07 06:50 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-03-07 13:20 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2016-03-07 20:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-03-08 11:20 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be> - 2016-03-07 20:00 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - 2016-03-07 20:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> - 2016-03-08 17:00 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2016-03-08 17:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-03-08 17:10 +0100
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> - 2016-03-08 17:20 +0100
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 05:10 +0100 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <r9UEy-6fS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Wim,
Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
between commit:
d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately")
from the arm-soc tree and commit:
fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts")
from the watchdog tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
index 71168077312d,66cb9aaa9135..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
@@@ -18,4 -83,165 +18,11 @@@
<0x0 0x2c006000 0 0x2000>;
interrupts = <1 9 0xf04>;
};
-
- timer {
- compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
- interrupts = <1 13 0xf08>,
- <1 14 0xf08>,
- <1 11 0xf08>,
- <1 10 0xf08>;
- clock-frequency = <100000000>;
- };
-
- pmu {
- compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
- interrupts = <0 60 4>,
- <0 61 4>,
- <0 62 4>,
- <0 63 4>;
- };
-
- smb {
- compatible = "arm,vexpress,v2m-p1", "simple-bus";
- arm,v2m-memory-map = "rs1";
- #address-cells = <2>; /* SMB chipselect number and offset */
- #size-cells = <1>;
-
- ranges = <0 0 0 0x08000000 0x04000000>,
- <1 0 0 0x14000000 0x04000000>,
- <2 0 0 0x18000000 0x04000000>,
- <3 0 0 0x1c000000 0x04000000>,
- <4 0 0 0x0c000000 0x04000000>,
- <5 0 0 0x10000000 0x04000000>;
-
- #interrupt-cells = <1>;
- interrupt-map-mask = <0 0 63>;
- interrupt-map = <0 0 0 &gic 0 0 4>,
- <0 0 1 &gic 0 1 4>,
- <0 0 2 &gic 0 2 4>,
- <0 0 3 &gic 0 3 4>,
- <0 0 4 &gic 0 4 4>,
- <0 0 5 &gic 0 5 4>,
- <0 0 6 &gic 0 6 4>,
- <0 0 7 &gic 0 7 4>,
- <0 0 8 &gic 0 8 4>,
- <0 0 9 &gic 0 9 4>,
- <0 0 10 &gic 0 10 4>,
- <0 0 11 &gic 0 11 4>,
- <0 0 12 &gic 0 12 4>,
- <0 0 13 &gic 0 13 4>,
- <0 0 14 &gic 0 14 4>,
- <0 0 15 &gic 0 15 4>,
- <0 0 16 &gic 0 16 4>,
- <0 0 17 &gic 0 17 4>,
- <0 0 18 &gic 0 18 4>,
- <0 0 19 &gic 0 19 4>,
- <0 0 20 &gic 0 20 4>,
- <0 0 21 &gic 0 21 4>,
- <0 0 22 &gic 0 22 4>,
- <0 0 23 &gic 0 23 4>,
- <0 0 24 &gic 0 24 4>,
- <0 0 25 &gic 0 25 4>,
- <0 0 26 &gic 0 26 4>,
- <0 0 27 &gic 0 27 4>,
- <0 0 28 &gic 0 28 4>,
- <0 0 29 &gic 0 29 4>,
- <0 0 30 &gic 0 30 4>,
- <0 0 31 &gic 0 31 4>,
- <0 0 32 &gic 0 32 4>,
- <0 0 33 &gic 0 33 4>,
- <0 0 34 &gic 0 34 4>,
- <0 0 35 &gic 0 35 4>,
- <0 0 36 &gic 0 36 4>,
- <0 0 37 &gic 0 37 4>,
- <0 0 38 &gic 0 38 4>,
- <0 0 39 &gic 0 39 4>,
- <0 0 40 &gic 0 40 4>,
- <0 0 41 &gic 0 41 4>,
- <0 0 42 &gic 0 42 4>;
-
- ethernet@2,02000000 {
- compatible = "smsc,lan91c111";
- reg = <2 0x02000000 0x10000>;
- interrupts = <15>;
- };
-
- v2m_clk24mhz: clk24mhz {
- compatible = "fixed-clock";
- #clock-cells = <0>;
- clock-frequency = <24000000>;
- clock-output-names = "v2m:clk24mhz";
- };
-
- v2m_refclk1mhz: refclk1mhz {
- compatible = "fixed-clock";
- #clock-cells = <0>;
- clock-frequency = <1000000>;
- clock-output-names = "v2m:refclk1mhz";
- };
-
- v2m_refclk32khz: refclk32khz {
- compatible = "fixed-clock";
- #clock-cells = <0>;
- clock-frequency = <32768>;
- clock-output-names = "v2m:refclk32khz";
- };
-
- iofpga@3,00000000 {
- compatible = "arm,amba-bus", "simple-bus";
- #address-cells = <1>;
- #size-cells = <1>;
- ranges = <0 3 0 0x200000>;
-
- v2m_sysreg: sysreg@010000 {
- compatible = "arm,vexpress-sysreg";
- reg = <0x010000 0x1000>;
- };
-
- v2m_serial0: uart@090000 {
- compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
- reg = <0x090000 0x1000>;
- interrupts = <5>;
- clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
- clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
- };
-
- v2m_serial1: uart@0a0000 {
- compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
- reg = <0x0a0000 0x1000>;
- interrupts = <6>;
- clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
- clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
- };
-
- v2m_serial2: uart@0b0000 {
- compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
- reg = <0x0b0000 0x1000>;
- interrupts = <7>;
- clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
- clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
- };
-
- v2m_serial3: uart@0c0000 {
- compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
- reg = <0x0c0000 0x1000>;
- interrupts = <8>;
- clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
- clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
- };
-
- virtio_block@0130000 {
- compatible = "virtio,mmio";
- reg = <0x130000 0x200>;
- interrupts = <42>;
- };
- };
- };
+ watchdog@2a440000 {
+ compatible = "arm,sbsa-gwdt";
+ reg = <0x0 0x2a440000 0 0x1000>,
+ <0x0 0x2a450000 0 0x1000>;
+ interrupts = <0 27 4>;
+ timeout-sec = <30>;
+ };
};
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 06:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r9Wdj-7a3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351303 |
Hi Wim,
It's much easier for us if all DTS changes go in through the arm-soc
trees, to avoid these kind of conflicts. Is this on a branch where you
can easily drop it and we pick it up instead, or is it on a now-stable
branch?
-Olof
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Wim,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>
> between commit:
>
> d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
> fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts")
>
> from the watchdog tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
> index 71168077312d,66cb9aaa9135..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
> @@@ -18,4 -83,165 +18,11 @@@
> <0x0 0x2c006000 0 0x2000>;
> interrupts = <1 9 0xf04>;
> };
> -
> - timer {
> - compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> - interrupts = <1 13 0xf08>,
> - <1 14 0xf08>,
> - <1 11 0xf08>,
> - <1 10 0xf08>;
> - clock-frequency = <100000000>;
> - };
> -
> - pmu {
> - compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
> - interrupts = <0 60 4>,
> - <0 61 4>,
> - <0 62 4>,
> - <0 63 4>;
> - };
> -
> - smb {
> - compatible = "arm,vexpress,v2m-p1", "simple-bus";
> - arm,v2m-memory-map = "rs1";
> - #address-cells = <2>; /* SMB chipselect number and offset */
> - #size-cells = <1>;
> -
> - ranges = <0 0 0 0x08000000 0x04000000>,
> - <1 0 0 0x14000000 0x04000000>,
> - <2 0 0 0x18000000 0x04000000>,
> - <3 0 0 0x1c000000 0x04000000>,
> - <4 0 0 0x0c000000 0x04000000>,
> - <5 0 0 0x10000000 0x04000000>;
> -
> - #interrupt-cells = <1>;
> - interrupt-map-mask = <0 0 63>;
> - interrupt-map = <0 0 0 &gic 0 0 4>,
> - <0 0 1 &gic 0 1 4>,
> - <0 0 2 &gic 0 2 4>,
> - <0 0 3 &gic 0 3 4>,
> - <0 0 4 &gic 0 4 4>,
> - <0 0 5 &gic 0 5 4>,
> - <0 0 6 &gic 0 6 4>,
> - <0 0 7 &gic 0 7 4>,
> - <0 0 8 &gic 0 8 4>,
> - <0 0 9 &gic 0 9 4>,
> - <0 0 10 &gic 0 10 4>,
> - <0 0 11 &gic 0 11 4>,
> - <0 0 12 &gic 0 12 4>,
> - <0 0 13 &gic 0 13 4>,
> - <0 0 14 &gic 0 14 4>,
> - <0 0 15 &gic 0 15 4>,
> - <0 0 16 &gic 0 16 4>,
> - <0 0 17 &gic 0 17 4>,
> - <0 0 18 &gic 0 18 4>,
> - <0 0 19 &gic 0 19 4>,
> - <0 0 20 &gic 0 20 4>,
> - <0 0 21 &gic 0 21 4>,
> - <0 0 22 &gic 0 22 4>,
> - <0 0 23 &gic 0 23 4>,
> - <0 0 24 &gic 0 24 4>,
> - <0 0 25 &gic 0 25 4>,
> - <0 0 26 &gic 0 26 4>,
> - <0 0 27 &gic 0 27 4>,
> - <0 0 28 &gic 0 28 4>,
> - <0 0 29 &gic 0 29 4>,
> - <0 0 30 &gic 0 30 4>,
> - <0 0 31 &gic 0 31 4>,
> - <0 0 32 &gic 0 32 4>,
> - <0 0 33 &gic 0 33 4>,
> - <0 0 34 &gic 0 34 4>,
> - <0 0 35 &gic 0 35 4>,
> - <0 0 36 &gic 0 36 4>,
> - <0 0 37 &gic 0 37 4>,
> - <0 0 38 &gic 0 38 4>,
> - <0 0 39 &gic 0 39 4>,
> - <0 0 40 &gic 0 40 4>,
> - <0 0 41 &gic 0 41 4>,
> - <0 0 42 &gic 0 42 4>;
> -
> - ethernet@2,02000000 {
> - compatible = "smsc,lan91c111";
> - reg = <2 0x02000000 0x10000>;
> - interrupts = <15>;
> - };
> -
> - v2m_clk24mhz: clk24mhz {
> - compatible = "fixed-clock";
> - #clock-cells = <0>;
> - clock-frequency = <24000000>;
> - clock-output-names = "v2m:clk24mhz";
> - };
> -
> - v2m_refclk1mhz: refclk1mhz {
> - compatible = "fixed-clock";
> - #clock-cells = <0>;
> - clock-frequency = <1000000>;
> - clock-output-names = "v2m:refclk1mhz";
> - };
> -
> - v2m_refclk32khz: refclk32khz {
> - compatible = "fixed-clock";
> - #clock-cells = <0>;
> - clock-frequency = <32768>;
> - clock-output-names = "v2m:refclk32khz";
> - };
> -
> - iofpga@3,00000000 {
> - compatible = "arm,amba-bus", "simple-bus";
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <1>;
> - ranges = <0 3 0 0x200000>;
> -
> - v2m_sysreg: sysreg@010000 {
> - compatible = "arm,vexpress-sysreg";
> - reg = <0x010000 0x1000>;
> - };
> -
> - v2m_serial0: uart@090000 {
> - compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
> - reg = <0x090000 0x1000>;
> - interrupts = <5>;
> - clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
> - clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
> - };
> -
> - v2m_serial1: uart@0a0000 {
> - compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
> - reg = <0x0a0000 0x1000>;
> - interrupts = <6>;
> - clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
> - clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
> - };
> -
> - v2m_serial2: uart@0b0000 {
> - compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
> - reg = <0x0b0000 0x1000>;
> - interrupts = <7>;
> - clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
> - clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
> - };
> -
> - v2m_serial3: uart@0c0000 {
> - compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell";
> - reg = <0x0c0000 0x1000>;
> - interrupts = <8>;
> - clocks = <&v2m_clk24mhz>, <&v2m_clk24mhz>;
> - clock-names = "uartclk", "apb_pclk";
> - };
> -
> - virtio_block@0130000 {
> - compatible = "virtio,mmio";
> - reg = <0x130000 0x200>;
> - interrupts = <42>;
> - };
> - };
> - };
> + watchdog@2a440000 {
> + compatible = "arm,sbsa-gwdt";
> + reg = <0x0 0x2a440000 0 0x1000>,
> + <0x0 0x2a450000 0 0x1000>;
> + interrupts = <0 27 4>;
> + timeout-sec = <30>;
> + };
> };
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 13:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <ra2iK-2IY-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351324 |
Hi Olof, On 07/03/16 05:41, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi Wim, > > It's much easier for us if all DTS changes go in through the arm-soc > trees, to avoid these kind of conflicts. Is this on a branch where you > can easily drop it and we pick it up instead, or is it on a now-stable > branch? > Sorry for that. Since the patch series was still under discussion and v14 was posted 3 days ago, I had not checked with Fu Wei on his plans for DTS changes. Let me know if you want to pick up this single patch directly or want me to send PR for that if Wim drops it from his branch. I might have couple of DTS warning fixes for juno/vexpress(though I need to wait for Rob's acks to them), so I can bundle them together. -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ra8Hv-6WP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351566 |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Olof, > > On 07/03/16 05:41, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> Hi Wim, >> >> It's much easier for us if all DTS changes go in through the arm-soc >> trees, to avoid these kind of conflicts. Is this on a branch where you >> can easily drop it and we pick it up instead, or is it on a now-stable >> branch? >> > > Sorry for that. Since the patch series was still under discussion and > v14 was posted 3 days ago, I had not checked with Fu Wei on his plans > for DTS changes. > > Let me know if you want to pick up this single patch directly or want me > to send PR for that if Wim drops it from his branch. I might have couple > of DTS warning fixes for juno/vexpress(though I need to wait for Rob's > acks to them), so I can bundle them together. We're short on time for -rc7, most material should have been in by now. So you might want to send this separately if you think Rob will time out. I'm OK with either applying directly or you bundling with other 64-bit DTS material. Either way, send to arm@kernel.org and we'll pick it up from there. Thanks, -Olof
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <ramUa-7VY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351891 |
On 07/03/16 19:00, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:19 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Olof, >> >> On 07/03/16 05:41, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> >>> Hi Wim, >>> >>> It's much easier for us if all DTS changes go in through the arm-soc >>> trees, to avoid these kind of conflicts. Is this on a branch where you >>> can easily drop it and we pick it up instead, or is it on a now-stable >>> branch? >>> >> >> Sorry for that. Since the patch series was still under discussion and >> v14 was posted 3 days ago, I had not checked with Fu Wei on his plans >> for DTS changes. >> >> Let me know if you want to pick up this single patch directly or want me >> to send PR for that if Wim drops it from his branch. I might have couple >> of DTS warning fixes for juno/vexpress(though I need to wait for Rob's >> acks to them), so I can bundle them together. > > We're short on time for -rc7, most material should have been in by > now. So you might want to send this separately if you think Rob will > time out. > I agree, but the warnings I mentioned got introduced last Friday after Rob updated DTC in -next. > I'm OK with either applying directly or you bundling with other 64-bit > DTS material. Either way, send to arm@kernel.org and we'll pick it up > from there. > OK, will do that. -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ra8xQ-6CZ-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351324 |
Hi All, > It's much easier for us if all DTS changes go in through the arm-soc > trees, to avoid these kind of conflicts. Is this on a branch where you > can easily drop it and we pick it up instead, or is it on a now-stable > branch? > > > -Olof I can always redo the tree once you picked it up. Kind regards, Wim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ra8Hw-6WP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351888 |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be> wrote: > Hi All, > >> It's much easier for us if all DTS changes go in through the arm-soc >> trees, to avoid these kind of conflicts. Is this on a branch where you >> can easily drop it and we pick it up instead, or is it on a now-stable >> branch? >> >> >> -Olof > > I can always redo the tree once you picked it up. Great, thanks! -Olof
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <rasdc-2OP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1351303 |
On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Wim,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>
> between commit:
>
> d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
> fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts")
>
> from the watchdog tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node
belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the
GICv2-only .dts.
So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of
the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the
.dtsi file?
If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the
breakage is not really critical).
Cheers,
Andre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rasmS-37R-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1353168 |
Hi All,
On 8 March 2016 at 22:52, André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Wim,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>> fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts")
>>
>> from the watchdog tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>
> But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node
> belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the
> GICv2-only .dts.
> So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of
> the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the
> .dtsi file?
I can rebase this patch to make a watchdog DT patch for
foundation-v8.dtsi ASAP.
Thanks
> If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the
> breakage is not really critical).
>
> Cheers,
> Andre.
>
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch
Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct)
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 18:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <rat9j-3s9-71@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1353178 |
On 08/03/16 16:03, Fu Wei wrote: > Hi All, > > On 8 March 2016 at 22:52, André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote: [...] > > I can rebase this patch to make a watchdog DT patch for > foundation-v8.dtsi ASAP. > > Thanks > >> If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the >> breakage is not really critical). >> Thanks Andre and Fu Wei, I just fixed it myself and sent the PR[1] -- Regards, Sudeep [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg489600.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <rasmS-37R-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1353168 |
Hi Andre,
On 08/03/16 15:52, André Przywara wrote:
> On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Wim,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>> fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts")
>>
>> from the watchdog tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>
> But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node
> belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the
> GICv2-only .dts.
> So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of
> the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the
> .dtsi file?
> If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the
> breakage is not really critical).
>
I have rebased it on top of my earlier PR and sending it shortly.
I have moved it to dtsi file.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 17:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree |
| Message-ID | <raswx-3bK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1353183 |
On 08/03/16 23:06, Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
> On 08/03/16 15:52, André Przywara wrote:
>> On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Wim,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>> d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the
>>> GIC separately")
>>>
>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>
>>> fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in
>>> foundation-v8.dts")
>>>
>>> from the watchdog tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>> is required).
>>
>> But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node
>> belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the
>> GICv2-only .dts.
>> So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of
>> the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the
>> .dtsi file?
>> If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the
>> breakage is not really critical).
>>
>
> I have rebased it on top of my earlier PR and sending it shortly.
> I have moved it to dtsi file.
Thanks, that was quick!
Hope that this now does not collide with Fu Wei's fix ;-)
Cheers,
Andre.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web