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

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:50:22 +0100 Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > > arch/arm/mach-virt/platsmp.c between commit fe4bff02886b ("arm: introduce
> > > > psci_smp_ops") from the xen-arm tree and commit c0114709ed85 ("irqchip:
> > > > gic: Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU notifier") from the
> > > > arm-soc tree.
> > > > 
> > > > The former renamed the file (and contents) so I applied the following
> > > > patch and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> > > > 
> > > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:27 +1000
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] arm: fix for Perform the gic_secondary_init() call via CPU
> > > >  notifier
> > > > 
> > > > due to code movement.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c | 7 -------
> > > >  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > index 6ef139d..cd9acc7 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c
> > > > @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@
> > > >   */
> > > >  
> > > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/smp.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/of.h>
> > > >  
> > > > @@ -55,11 +54,6 @@ static int __cpuinit psci_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu,
> > > >  	return -ENODEV;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -static void __cpuinit psci_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > -{
> > > > -	gic_secondary_init(0);
> > > > -}
> > > > -
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > > >  void __ref psci_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -84,7 +78,6 @@ bool __init psci_smp_available(void)
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  struct smp_operations __initdata psci_smp_ops = {
> > > > -	.smp_secondary_init	= psci_secondary_init,
> > > >  	.smp_boot_secondary	= psci_boot_secondary,
> > > >  	.cpu_die		= psci_cpu_die,
> > > >  };
> > > 
> > > The fix looks fine. Thanks.
> > 
> > Indeed, thanks! I'll add to it to the tree.
> 
> You should not apply that to your tree as you don't have the rest of the
> change from the arm-soc tree.  It needs to be applied to the merge of the
> two trees i.e. when Linus merges the last of the two trees.
> 
> This is why I wrote "no action is required".

I added the patch because it is very small and only affects psci_smp.c,
so it is not a problem for me to carry it in the xen-arm tree.
But I see your point, I'll remove it.

As a side note for the arm-soc maintainers in CC, even though I
proactively added the PSCI and the smp_init patches
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136716063717467&w=2) to linux-next
to make sure they get enough exposure for this merge window, I would
appreciate if you could pick them up in your tree. I think they should
to Linus via arm-soc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/