On Friday 16 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c between commit 1d7233ac478a ("Merge branch
> 'next/soc-exynos5250-arch-gpio' into for-next") from the s5p tree and
> commit 853a0231e057 ("Merge branch 'samsung/soc' into next/soc2") from
> the arm-soc tree.
>
> These merge commits both looks suspect, but I fixed it up as best I could
> (see below).
Right, both the arm-soc and the s5p tree merge the same commits and
come to different results. Kgene, please have a look and let me know
which of the three solutions is correct.
Arnd
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> index 4e1d0b7,e6cc50e..0000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
> @@@ -593,6 -586,14 +593,13 @@@ static int __init exynos4_l2x0_cache_in
> if (soc_is_exynos5250())
> return 0;
>
> - int ret;
> + ret = l2x0_of_init(L2_AUX_VAL, L2_AUX_MASK);
> + if (!ret) {
> + l2x0_regs_phys = virt_to_phys(&l2x0_saved_regs);
> + clean_dcache_area(&l2x0_regs_phys, sizeof(unsigned long));
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> if (!(__raw_readl(S5P_VA_L2CC + L2X0_CTRL) & 0x1)) {
> l2x0_saved_regs.phy_base = EXYNOS4_PA_L2CC;
> /* TAG, Data Latency Control: 2 cycles */
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
