Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

[Maxime Ripard]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >> > Hi Arnd, Olof,
> > >> >
> > >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning
> > >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix
> > >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7.
> > >> >
> > >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by
> > >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the
> > >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more
> > >> > formal pull request for these patches
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >> > Maxime
> > >> >
> > >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1):
> > >> >   ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates
> > >>
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates
> (cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's
> tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such.
> 
> ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with
> topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well
> since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs.
> 
> I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize.
> I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this
> would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to
> stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have
> to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with
> CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same
> time).
> 
> I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as
> a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable
> kernels queue as well if we all agree.
> 
> If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order
> unfortunately matters.

Ok, so you're saying we need to revert 1ba9bf0a and 7764/1. I couldn't
find a commit corresponding to this one, however there is a commit
labelled 7763/1 from you that touch the same area (18d7f152). Are these
the commits that need to be reverted (and then reapplied for 3.11) ?

Russell, Arnd, Olof, who should revert this patch, and through which
tree?

Thanks,
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature