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".
And you committed it to your tree without your Signed-off-by ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpJSKLyGCqym.pgp
Description: PGP signature
