Hello Russell, hello Greg,
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 07:15:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:59:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 05:56:50PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:52:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > I'm glad to take this through my char/misc tree, as that's where the
> > > > > other coresight changes flow through. So if no one else objects, I will
> > > > > do so...
> > > >
> > > > Greg, did you end up pulling this after all? If not, Uwe produced a v2.
> > > > I haven't merged v2 yet as I don't know what you've done.
> > >
> > > I thought you merged this?
> >
> > I took v1, and put it in a branch I've promised in the past not to
> > rebase/rewind. Uwe is now asking for me to take a v2 or apply a patch
> > on top.
> >
> > The only reason to produce an "immutable" branch is if it's the basis
> > for some dependent work and you need that branch merged into other
> > people's trees... so the whole "lets produce a v2" is really odd
> > workflow... I'm confused about what I should do, and who has to be
> > informed which option I take.
> >
> > I'm rather lost here too.
>
> Sorry to have cause this confusion. After I saw that my initial tag
> missed to adapt a driver I wanted to make it easy for you to fix the
> situation.
> So I created a patch to fix it and created a second tag with the patch
> squashed in. Obviously only one of them have to be picked and I hoped
> you (= Russell + Greg) would agree which option to pick.
>
> My preference would be if you both pick up v2 of the tag to yield a
> history that is bisectable without build problems, but if Russell (who
> already picked up the broken tag) considers his tree immutable and so
> isn't willing to rebase, then picking up the patch is the way to go.
OK, the current state is that Russell applied the patch fixing
drivers/mailbox/arm_mhuv2.c on top of merging my first tag.
So the way forward now is that Greg pulls
git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git devel-stable
which currently points to
860660fd829e ("ARM: 9055/1: mailbox: arm_mhuv2: make remove callback return void")
, into his tree that contains the hwtracing changes that conflict with my
changes. @Greg: Is this good enough, or do you require a dedicated tag
to pull that?
I think these conflicting hwtracing changes are not yet in any of Greg's
trees (at least they are not in next).
When I pull
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git next
(currently pointing to 4e73ff249184 ("coresight: etm4x: Handle accesses
to TRCSTALLCTLR")) into 860660fd829e, I get a conflict in
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c as expected. My
resolution looks as follows:
diff --cc drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
index 82787cba537d,5017d33ba4f5..000000000000
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c
@@@ -1703,6 -1906,28 +1906,27 @@@ static int __exit etm4_remove_dev(struc
cpus_read_unlock();
coresight_unregister(drvdata->csdev);
+
+ return 0;
+ }
+
-static int __exit etm4_remove_amba(struct amba_device *adev)
++static void __exit etm4_remove_amba(struct amba_device *adev)
+ {
+ struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(&adev->dev);
+
+ if (drvdata)
- return etm4_remove_dev(drvdata);
- return 0;
++ etm4_remove_dev(drvdata);
+ }
+
+ static int __exit etm4_remove_platform_dev(struct platform_device *pdev)
+ {
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
+
+ if (drvdata)
+ ret = etm4_remove_dev(drvdata);
+ pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
+ return ret;
}
static const struct amba_id etm4_ids[] = {
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
