linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: drivers/soc/ti/Makefile between commit: dc1129564a01 ("soc: ti: pruss: Add a platform driver for PRUSS in TI SoCs") from the arm-soc tree and commit: bca815d62054 ("PM: AVS: smartreflex Move driver to soc specific drivers") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc drivers/soc/ti/Makefile index 18129aa557df,5463431ec96c.. --- a/drivers/soc/ti/Makefile +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/Makefile @@@ -12,4 -12,4 +12,5 @@@ obj-$(CONFIG_TI_SCI_PM_DOMAINS) += ti_ obj-$(CONFIG_TI_SCI_INTA_MSI_DOMAIN) += ti_sci_inta_msi.o obj-$(CONFIG_TI_K3_RINGACC) += k3-ringacc.o obj-$(CONFIG_TI_K3_SOCINFO) += k3-socinfo.o +obj-$(CONFIG_TI_PRUSS)+= pruss.o + obj-$(CONFIG_POWER_AVS_OMAP) += smartreflex.o pgpP7KjuYgE1U.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/24/2017 11:02 AM, Dave Gerlach wrote: On 04/21/2017 04:54 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: +Dave, [...] Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w= URL that is in linux-next? Dave, Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ? Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines. I didn't change any of the URLs in the patches, I am not sure what those URLs are. In the patches I sent the URLs are fine, and I see them normal on patchwork too: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.kernel.org_patch_9660785_=DwICaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=eK4-xq3xbWwYHfuVa6ee48pvTCWUv5X5PHM285eHMLQ=uCfKZ0Z0T8Aaf4ircFilcu8zRVDU8XyGdbsq4OW3GaE= Is there something that automatically changes those? I don't want to send another patch for it to just get mangled again. Looks like thats the case as one of my Oracle colleague pointed out. I will send you off-list an email to get correct URL and update the git tree accordingly. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/24/2017 11:02 AM, Dave Gerlach wrote: On 04/21/2017 04:54 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: +Dave, [...] Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w= URL that is in linux-next? Dave, Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ? Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines. I didn't change any of the URLs in the patches, I am not sure what those URLs are. In the patches I sent the URLs are fine, and I see them normal on patchwork too: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.kernel.org_patch_9660785_=DwICaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=eK4-xq3xbWwYHfuVa6ee48pvTCWUv5X5PHM285eHMLQ=uCfKZ0Z0T8Aaf4ircFilcu8zRVDU8XyGdbsq4OW3GaE= Is there something that automatically changes those? I don't want to send another patch for it to just get mangled again. Looks like thats the case as one of my Oracle colleague pointed out. I will send you off-list an email to get correct URL and update the git tree accordingly. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 04/21/2017 04:54 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: +Dave, On 4/21/2017 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.comwrote: On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [...] arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w= URL that is in linux-next? Dave, Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ? Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines. I didn't change any of the URLs in the patches, I am not sure what those URLs are. In the patches I sent the URLs are fine, and I see them normal on patchwork too: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9660785/ Is there something that automatically changes those? I don't want to send another patch for it to just get mangled again. Regards, Dave Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 04/21/2017 04:54 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: +Dave, On 4/21/2017 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [...] arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w= URL that is in linux-next? Dave, Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ? Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines. I didn't change any of the URLs in the patches, I am not sure what those URLs are. In the patches I sent the URLs are fine, and I see them normal on patchwork too: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9660785/ Is there something that automatically changes those? I don't want to send another patch for it to just get mangled again. Regards, Dave Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
+Dave, On 4/21/2017 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.comwrote: On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [...] arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w= URL that is in linux-next? Dave, Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ? Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
+Dave, On 4/21/2017 2:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: [...] arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.org=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=vFHOEb7p2FxbH00YRQq4WnRiu2BKHADn0gl6e6DoNFQ=7mfiIp2Ywy9_ppWKjEGlrswiKRndv8_I7zGVF9uyT0w= URL that is in linux-next? Dave, Any reason you changed these URLs in last version ? Can you please fixup these URLs to along with DT defines. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/21/2017 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 PM santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com [...] I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of them is your keystone tree: In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry. NP. I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch. Thanks for clarification. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/21/2017 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 PM santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com [...] I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of them is your keystone tree: In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry. NP. I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch. Thanks for clarification. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.comwrote: > On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com >> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h > > between commit: > > 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix > as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? >>> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or >>> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. >>> >>> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have >>> only arm-soc copy. >> >> >> I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of >> them is your keystone tree: >> > In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. > > ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g > 52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver > 7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains > 213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells > a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct > >> arm-soc/next/drivers: >> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g >> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver >> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains >> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle >> cells >> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct >> > Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular http://www.ti.org URL that is in linux-next? Arnd
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:02 PM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: > On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com >> wrote: >>> >>> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h > > between commit: > > 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix > as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? >>> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or >>> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. >>> >>> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have >>> only arm-soc copy. >> >> >> I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of >> them is your keystone tree: >> > In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. > > ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g > 52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver > 7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains > 213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells > a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct > >> arm-soc/next/drivers: >> ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g >> 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver >> 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains >> 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle >> cells >> a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct >> > Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. Ok, good, thanks for checking! They are however the commits that contain the silly https://urldefense.proofpoint.com URLs. Can you send a follow-up patch to fix these and use the regular http://www.ti.org URL that is in linux-next? Arnd
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 PM santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: > > On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com > >wrote: > >> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell > >>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h > > between commit: > > 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. > >>> > >>> > >>> Dave, Santosh, > >>> > >>> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong > >>> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? > >>> > >> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or > >> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. > >> > >> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have > >> only arm-soc copy. > > > > I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of > > them is your keystone tree: > > > In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry. I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch. Thanks, Rafael
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Friday, April 21, 2017 02:02:35 PM santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: > > On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com > > wrote: > >> On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell > >>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h > > between commit: > > 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. > >>> > >>> > >>> Dave, Santosh, > >>> > >>> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong > >>> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? > >>> > >> Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or > >> so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. > >> > >> I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have > >> only arm-soc copy. > > > > I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of > > them is your keystone tree: > > > In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. OK, I missed that when I looked at it again a couple of days ago, sorry. I'll drop it from the pm-domains branch. Thanks, Rafael
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.comwrote: On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h between commit: 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have only arm-soc copy. I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of them is your keystone tree: In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. pm/pm-domains: 9da73c55f95f ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 112572283742 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 45da8edd1741 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains b1013fa55589 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells 7030fc004df9 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct The above git object don't exist in my tree so am not sure about these objects. I Just checked Rafael's pm-domains head and that also don't have these objects. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=pm-domains b539cc82d493 PM / Domains: Ignore domain-idle-states that are not compatible 075c37d59ecd PM / Domains: Don't warn about IRQ safe device for an always on PM domain 1c14967c6ea0 PM / Domains: Respect errors from genpd's ->power_off() callback ffaa42e8a40b PM / Domains: Enable users of genpd to specify always on PM domains 41e2c8e0060d PM / Domains: Clean up code validating genpd's status 8ce95844c853 PM / Domain: remove conditional from error case For all I can tell (and matching what Stephen found), the version in the 'pm' tree is the one you intended to send, while the version we merged into arm-soc has not only a different git commit ID but also some odd comments that are not present in the PM version: See above. The one in arm-soc tree is what I sent as pull request. Am also confused for the git objects you pointed out in pm/pm-domains. If they are not on the source pm-domains tree then how they landed up in linux-next ? Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/21/17 2:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h between commit: 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have only arm-soc copy. I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of them is your keystone tree: In the list it was agreed that the patchset goes via arm-soc tree. ae3874c ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d5 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7f PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct Above are the correct git object for which I sent pull request for. pm/pm-domains: 9da73c55f95f ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 112572283742 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 45da8edd1741 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains b1013fa55589 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells 7030fc004df9 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct The above git object don't exist in my tree so am not sure about these objects. I Just checked Rafael's pm-domains head and that also don't have these objects. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=pm-domains b539cc82d493 PM / Domains: Ignore domain-idle-states that are not compatible 075c37d59ecd PM / Domains: Don't warn about IRQ safe device for an always on PM domain 1c14967c6ea0 PM / Domains: Respect errors from genpd's ->power_off() callback ffaa42e8a40b PM / Domains: Enable users of genpd to specify always on PM domains 41e2c8e0060d PM / Domains: Clean up code validating genpd's status 8ce95844c853 PM / Domain: remove conditional from error case For all I can tell (and matching what Stephen found), the version in the 'pm' tree is the one you intended to send, while the version we merged into arm-soc has not only a different git commit ID but also some odd comments that are not present in the PM version: See above. The one in arm-soc tree is what I sent as pull request. Am also confused for the git objects you pointed out in pm/pm-domains. If they are not on the source pm-domains tree then how they landed up in linux-next ? Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.comwrote: > On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") >>> >>> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >>> >>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") >>> >>> from the pm tree. >>> >>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as >>> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any >>> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer >>> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider >>> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any >>> particularly complex conflicts. >> >> >> Dave, Santosh, >> >> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong >> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? >> > Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or > so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. > > I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have > only arm-soc copy. I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of them is your keystone tree: arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct pm/pm-domains: 9da73c55f95f ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 112572283742 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 45da8edd1741 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains b1013fa55589 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells 7030fc004df9 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct b539cc82d493 PM / Domains: Ignore domain-idle-states that are not compatible 075c37d59ecd PM / Domains: Don't warn about IRQ safe device for an always on PM domain 1c14967c6ea0 PM / Domains: Respect errors from genpd's ->power_off() callback ffaa42e8a40b PM / Domains: Enable users of genpd to specify always on PM domains 41e2c8e0060d PM / Domains: Clean up code validating genpd's status 8ce95844c853 PM / Domain: remove conditional from error case For all I can tell (and matching what Stephen found), the version in the 'pm' tree is the one you intended to send, while the version we merged into arm-soc has not only a different git commit ID but also some odd comments that are not present in the PM version: +/* + * TI SCI Generic Power Domain Driver + * + * Copyright (C) 2015-2017 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.com_=DwIBAg=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=R6qGiR9DbG1C3EF_0mL-m-qkmSO64GklbFWpUzqt8fY=YTWcQCWi5lnIf4XHDLq1XDd4JbZv9xpqOwdPD8xEdZE= Arnd
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:39 AM, santosh.shilim...@oracle.com wrote: > On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: >>> >>> include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>> 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") >>> >>> from the arm-soc tree and commit: >>> >>> 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") >>> >>> from the pm tree. >>> >>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as >>> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any >>> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer >>> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider >>> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any >>> particularly complex conflicts. >> >> >> Dave, Santosh, >> >> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong >> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? >> > Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or > so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. > > I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have > only arm-soc copy. I still see two conflicting trees in linux-next as of today, neither of them is your keystone tree: arm-soc/next/drivers: ae3874cc931b ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 52835d59fc6c soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 7cc119f29b19 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains 213ec7fed302 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells a5ea7a0fcbd7 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct pm/pm-domains: 9da73c55f95f ARM: keystone: Drop PM domain support for k2g 112572283742 soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver 45da8edd1741 dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains b1013fa55589 PM / Domains: Do not check if simple providers have phandle cells 7030fc004df9 PM / Domains: Add generic data pointer to genpd data struct b539cc82d493 PM / Domains: Ignore domain-idle-states that are not compatible 075c37d59ecd PM / Domains: Don't warn about IRQ safe device for an always on PM domain 1c14967c6ea0 PM / Domains: Respect errors from genpd's ->power_off() callback ffaa42e8a40b PM / Domains: Enable users of genpd to specify always on PM domains 41e2c8e0060d PM / Domains: Clean up code validating genpd's status 8ce95844c853 PM / Domain: remove conditional from error case For all I can tell (and matching what Stephen found), the version in the 'pm' tree is the one you intended to send, while the version we merged into arm-soc has not only a different git commit ID but also some odd comments that are not present in the PM version: +/* + * TI SCI Generic Power Domain Driver + * + * Copyright (C) 2015-2017 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ti.com_=DwIBAg=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=XBn1JQGPwR8CsE7xpP3wPlG6DQU7qw8ym65xieNZ4hY=R6qGiR9DbG1C3EF_0mL-m-qkmSO64GklbFWpUzqt8fY=YTWcQCWi5lnIf4XHDLq1XDd4JbZv9xpqOwdPD8xEdZE= Arnd
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwellwrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h between commit: 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have only arm-soc copy. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h between commit: 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well. I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have only arm-soc copy. Regards, Santosh
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwellwrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h > > between commit: > > 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? Arnd
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h > > between commit: > > 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") > > from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as > necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any > non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer > when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any > particularly complex conflicts. Dave, Santosh, any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc? Arnd
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h between commit: 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h between commit: 7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: drivers/soc/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c between commit: 52835d59fc6c ("soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 112572283742 ("soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I used the pm tree version, but it was an arbitrary choice as the only difference is the URL in the Copyright line) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: drivers/soc/ti/ti_sci_pm_domains.c between commit: 52835d59fc6c ("soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 112572283742 ("soc: ti: Add ti_sci_pm_domains driver") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (I used the pm tree version, but it was an arbitrary choice as the only difference is the URL in the Copyright line) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:34:27 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi > > between commits: > > 66c373228dc4 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: Add the Mali OPPs") > e6bd37627e92 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: add all operating points") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > d87bd1942058 ("PM / OPP: Use - instead of @ for DT entries") > > from the pm tree. Thanks for the report! I'm going to drop the conflicting commit tomorrow. Thanks, Rafael
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:34:27 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi > > between commits: > > 66c373228dc4 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: Add the Mali OPPs") > e6bd37627e92 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: add all operating points") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > d87bd1942058 ("PM / OPP: Use - instead of @ for DT entries") > > from the pm tree. Thanks for the report! I'm going to drop the conflicting commit tomorrow. Thanks, Rafael
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi between commits: 66c373228dc4 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: Add the Mali OPPs") e6bd37627e92 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: add all operating points") from the arm-soc tree and commit: d87bd1942058 ("PM / OPP: Use - instead of @ for DT entries") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. I suspect that arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33-sinlinx-sina33.dts may need some fixups as well. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi index 013978259372,a2c555d6475c.. --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi @@@ -50,73 -49,19 +50,73 @@@ compatible = "operating-points-v2"; opp-shared; - opp@12000 { ++ opp-12000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <12000>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@24000 { ++ opp-24000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <24000>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@31200 { ++ opp-31200 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <31200>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@40800 { ++ opp-40800 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <40800>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@48000 { ++ opp-48000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <48000>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@50400 { ++ opp-50400 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <50400>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@6 { ++ opp-6 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <6>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@64800 { + opp-64800 { opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <64800>; opp-microvolt = <104>; clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ }; - opp@72000 { ++ opp-72000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <72000>; + opp-microvolt = <110>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@81600 { + opp-81600 { opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <81600>; opp-microvolt = <110>; clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ }; - opp@91200 { ++ opp-91200 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <91200>; + opp-microvolt = <120>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@100800 { + opp-100800 { opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <100800>; opp-microvolt = <120>; clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ @@@ -156,27 -100,6 +156,27 @@@ status = "disabled"; }; + iio-hwmon { + compatible = "iio-hwmon"; + io-channels = <>; + }; + + mali_opp_table: gpu-opp-table { + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; + - opp@14400 { ++ opp-14400 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <14400>; + }; + - opp@24000 { ++ opp-24000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <24000>; + }; + - opp@38400 { ++ opp-38400 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <38400>; +
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi between commits: 66c373228dc4 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: Add the Mali OPPs") e6bd37627e92 ("ARM: sun8i: a33: add all operating points") from the arm-soc tree and commit: d87bd1942058 ("PM / OPP: Use - instead of @ for DT entries") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. I suspect that arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33-sinlinx-sina33.dts may need some fixups as well. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi index 013978259372,a2c555d6475c.. --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun8i-a33.dtsi @@@ -50,73 -49,19 +50,73 @@@ compatible = "operating-points-v2"; opp-shared; - opp@12000 { ++ opp-12000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <12000>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@24000 { ++ opp-24000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <24000>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@31200 { ++ opp-31200 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <31200>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@40800 { ++ opp-40800 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <40800>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@48000 { ++ opp-48000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <48000>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@50400 { ++ opp-50400 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <50400>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@6 { ++ opp-6 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <6>; + opp-microvolt = <104>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@64800 { + opp-64800 { opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <64800>; opp-microvolt = <104>; clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ }; - opp@72000 { ++ opp-72000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <72000>; + opp-microvolt = <110>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@81600 { + opp-81600 { opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <81600>; opp-microvolt = <110>; clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ }; - opp@91200 { ++ opp-91200 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <91200>; + opp-microvolt = <120>; + clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ + }; + - opp@100800 { + opp-100800 { opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <100800>; opp-microvolt = <120>; clock-latency-ns = <244144>; /* 8 32k periods */ @@@ -156,27 -100,6 +156,27 @@@ status = "disabled"; }; + iio-hwmon { + compatible = "iio-hwmon"; + io-channels = <>; + }; + + mali_opp_table: gpu-opp-table { + compatible = "operating-points-v2"; + - opp@14400 { ++ opp-14400 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <14400>; + }; + - opp@24000 { ++ opp-24000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <24000>; + }; + - opp@38400 { ++ opp-38400 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <38400>; +
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: MAINTAINERS between commit: e269777f72b3 ("MAINTAINERS: attach arch/arm/configs/mvebu_*_defconfig to relevant maintainers") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 9f123def55d3 ("cpufreq: mvebu: Move cpufreq code into drivers/cpufreq/") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc MAINTAINERS index e7ad57a3c1f5,0bb566e7df9b.. --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@@ -1328,8 -1322,9 +1328,9 @@@ F: drivers/rtc/rtc-armada38x. F:arch/arm/boot/dts/armada* F:arch/arm/boot/dts/kirkwood* F:arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/armada* +F:arch/arm/configs/mvebu_*_defconfig + F:drivers/cpufreq/mvebu-cpufreq.c - ARM/Marvell Berlin SoC support M:Sebastian HesselbarthL:linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in: MAINTAINERS between commit: e269777f72b3 ("MAINTAINERS: attach arch/arm/configs/mvebu_*_defconfig to relevant maintainers") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 9f123def55d3 ("cpufreq: mvebu: Move cpufreq code into drivers/cpufreq/") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc MAINTAINERS index e7ad57a3c1f5,0bb566e7df9b.. --- a/MAINTAINERS +++ b/MAINTAINERS @@@ -1328,8 -1322,9 +1328,9 @@@ F: drivers/rtc/rtc-armada38x. F:arch/arm/boot/dts/armada* F:arch/arm/boot/dts/kirkwood* F:arch/arm64/boot/dts/marvell/armada* +F:arch/arm/configs/mvebu_*_defconfig + F:drivers/cpufreq/mvebu-cpufreq.c - ARM/Marvell Berlin SoC support M:Sebastian Hesselbarth L:linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 02:18:50 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-sh73a0.c between commit aa0bdc303b0f > ("ARM: shmobile: sh73a0: Remove duplicate CPUFreq bits") from the > arm-soc tree and commit 978027e170fb ("cpufreq: cpu0: rename driver and > internals to 'cpufreq_dt'") from the pm tree. > > I fixed it up (the former removed the lines that were updated by the > latter) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 02:18:50 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-sh73a0.c between commit aa0bdc303b0f (ARM: shmobile: sh73a0: Remove duplicate CPUFreq bits) from the arm-soc tree and commit 978027e170fb (cpufreq: cpu0: rename driver and internals to 'cpufreq_dt') from the pm tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the lines that were updated by the latter) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-sh73a0.c between commit aa0bdc303b0f ("ARM: shmobile: sh73a0: Remove duplicate CPUFreq bits") from the arm-soc tree and commit 978027e170fb ("cpufreq: cpu0: rename driver and internals to 'cpufreq_dt'") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the lines that were updated by the latter) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au signature.asc Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-ape6evm-reference.c between commit 664b4c172209 ("ARM: shmobile: ape6evm: Remove duplicate CPUFreq bits") from the arm-soc tree and commit 978027e170fb ("cpufreq: cpu0: rename driver and internals to 'cpufreq_dt'") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the line updated by the latter) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au signature.asc Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-ape6evm-reference.c between commit 664b4c172209 (ARM: shmobile: ape6evm: Remove duplicate CPUFreq bits) from the arm-soc tree and commit 978027e170fb (cpufreq: cpu0: rename driver and internals to 'cpufreq_dt') from the pm tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the line updated by the latter) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au signature.asc Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-sh73a0.c between commit aa0bdc303b0f (ARM: shmobile: sh73a0: Remove duplicate CPUFreq bits) from the arm-soc tree and commit 978027e170fb (cpufreq: cpu0: rename driver and internals to 'cpufreq_dt') from the pm tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the lines that were updated by the latter) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:23:05 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > --Sig_/ACOdpNyKdCGq/4_bRoeLLze > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Hi Rafael, Hi Stephen, > Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in > drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm between commit 2aaafcdb6883 ("cpuidle: > big.LITTLE: Add ARCH_EXYNOS entry in config") from the arm-soc tree and > commit 6ee7f5dd57fc ("cpuidle: big_little: Fix build error") from the > pm tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > is required). Thanks for the fix! > diff --cc drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm > index 33fc0ff0af1c,a186dec8e5df.. > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm > @@@ -1,9 -1,16 +1,10 @@@ > # > # ARM CPU Idle drivers > # > -config ARM_ARMADA_370_XP_CPUIDLE > -bool "CPU Idle Driver for Armada 370/XP family processors" > -depends on ARCH_MVEBU > -help > - Select this to enable cpuidle on Armada 370/XP processors. > - > config ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUIDLE > bool "Support for ARM big.LITTLE processors" > -depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM > +depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM || ARCH_EXYNOS > + depends on MCPM > select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND > select CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS > help > > --Sig_/ACOdpNyKdCGq/4_bRoeLLze > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJT2FcWAAoJEMDTa8Ir7ZwVpXAP/i6U5VfuEjywNOnyq2GF13qx > gpKWy6BNWg6TACRERzfngwOBID7nUVeQH3ksri2ReiDJkjM655dOnR2T1d4q+Txc > CYc+TYp1x37ErXOVarlrnoVSqeNKSiARQdKLSE0ztLWfg/s+zmAuCjznbbBkFwyo > tEbfa7kkMRo6TBopPVHevQ/Pe/s0ZVFXqS8KNyd5XImgeEmUAnvGl0KBSetA+b8u > 1zB/U8V7d4cnWH6jRiijVDOBBs1RlmTJHV12NeKWzukjjEWd8QJ2cQHLRo/aS/js > AVwCMUE5Q5AFAOj+aLtETpo2wc3VPNkq6QwFk4sJgmizvISQ5l/8nveBJgGU457m > XQAHlgvhWAArtD2uowLP/aGhUJE3D3MBDs/6r/eMxfYeTBJSgfLllz9jXTayfshM > 7saBQtwh+npKK2M4tDivUGE0zFoRj/qcCdiSB/+r0XYGaFwGIqoqEHnlsS/YElUF > HJBCQgUPpzv832JXuJUuR5RnCOiGYiWlTGBs+WHoWXgVpVyIpZOfOPGinTbaOgIa > 23OHAdHLTdWTg+adfKmrTGPu++OTxI985oooYhqHsmpp6MPLxC6ABgqlWlUh15zb > sNs02B6XLBvm6Sa4v3w2anYAZCtwrO3TcihsL5mFhLHxForyq+U45qbktcZ6CBbF > xI0c32N77d98oZMV81vN > =U/IC > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > --Sig_/ACOdpNyKdCGq/4_bRoeLLze-- > -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 12:23:05 PM Stephen Rothwell wrote: --Sig_/ACOdpNyKdCGq/4_bRoeLLze Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Rafael, Hi Stephen, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm between commit 2aaafcdb6883 (cpuidle: big.LITTLE: Add ARCH_EXYNOS entry in config) from the arm-soc tree and commit 6ee7f5dd57fc (cpuidle: big_little: Fix build error) from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). Thanks for the fix! diff --cc drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm index 33fc0ff0af1c,a186dec8e5df.. --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm @@@ -1,9 -1,16 +1,10 @@@ # # ARM CPU Idle drivers # -config ARM_ARMADA_370_XP_CPUIDLE -bool CPU Idle Driver for Armada 370/XP family processors -depends on ARCH_MVEBU -help - Select this to enable cpuidle on Armada 370/XP processors. - config ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUIDLE bool Support for ARM big.LITTLE processors -depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM +depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM || ARCH_EXYNOS + depends on MCPM select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND select CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS help --Sig_/ACOdpNyKdCGq/4_bRoeLLze Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJT2FcWAAoJEMDTa8Ir7ZwVpXAP/i6U5VfuEjywNOnyq2GF13qx gpKWy6BNWg6TACRERzfngwOBID7nUVeQH3ksri2ReiDJkjM655dOnR2T1d4q+Txc CYc+TYp1x37ErXOVarlrnoVSqeNKSiARQdKLSE0ztLWfg/s+zmAuCjznbbBkFwyo tEbfa7kkMRo6TBopPVHevQ/Pe/s0ZVFXqS8KNyd5XImgeEmUAnvGl0KBSetA+b8u 1zB/U8V7d4cnWH6jRiijVDOBBs1RlmTJHV12NeKWzukjjEWd8QJ2cQHLRo/aS/js AVwCMUE5Q5AFAOj+aLtETpo2wc3VPNkq6QwFk4sJgmizvISQ5l/8nveBJgGU457m XQAHlgvhWAArtD2uowLP/aGhUJE3D3MBDs/6r/eMxfYeTBJSgfLllz9jXTayfshM 7saBQtwh+npKK2M4tDivUGE0zFoRj/qcCdiSB/+r0XYGaFwGIqoqEHnlsS/YElUF HJBCQgUPpzv832JXuJUuR5RnCOiGYiWlTGBs+WHoWXgVpVyIpZOfOPGinTbaOgIa 23OHAdHLTdWTg+adfKmrTGPu++OTxI985oooYhqHsmpp6MPLxC6ABgqlWlUh15zb sNs02B6XLBvm6Sa4v3w2anYAZCtwrO3TcihsL5mFhLHxForyq+U45qbktcZ6CBbF xI0c32N77d98oZMV81vN =U/IC -END PGP SIGNATURE- --Sig_/ACOdpNyKdCGq/4_bRoeLLze-- -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm between commit 2aaafcdb6883 ("cpuidle: big.LITTLE: Add ARCH_EXYNOS entry in config") from the arm-soc tree and commit 6ee7f5dd57fc ("cpuidle: big_little: Fix build error") from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au diff --cc drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm index 33fc0ff0af1c,a186dec8e5df.. --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm @@@ -1,9 -1,16 +1,10 @@@ # # ARM CPU Idle drivers # -config ARM_ARMADA_370_XP_CPUIDLE - bool "CPU Idle Driver for Armada 370/XP family processors" - depends on ARCH_MVEBU - help -Select this to enable cpuidle on Armada 370/XP processors. - config ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUIDLE bool "Support for ARM big.LITTLE processors" - depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM + depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM || ARCH_EXYNOS + depends on MCPM select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND select CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS help signature.asc Description: PGP signature
linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree
Hi Rafael, Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm between commit 2aaafcdb6883 (cpuidle: big.LITTLE: Add ARCH_EXYNOS entry in config) from the arm-soc tree and commit 6ee7f5dd57fc (cpuidle: big_little: Fix build error) from the pm tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au diff --cc drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm index 33fc0ff0af1c,a186dec8e5df.. --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm @@@ -1,9 -1,16 +1,10 @@@ # # ARM CPU Idle drivers # -config ARM_ARMADA_370_XP_CPUIDLE - bool CPU Idle Driver for Armada 370/XP family processors - depends on ARCH_MVEBU - help -Select this to enable cpuidle on Armada 370/XP processors. - config ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUIDLE bool Support for ARM big.LITTLE processors - depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM + depends on ARCH_VEXPRESS_TC2_PM || ARCH_EXYNOS + depends on MCPM select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND select CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS help signature.asc Description: PGP signature