On 01/31/2013 09:35 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:42:36PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> Tegra currently relies on the SCU to determine the number of CPU >>> cores, and also hard-codes the SCU physical address. >>> >>> This series adds a /cpus node to the Tegra device tree, and updates >>> the code to rely solely on that to determine the CPU count. A new >>> API is introduced to query for the existence of SCU registers, and the >>> SCU register address. Tegra and OMAP2 are converted to use these new >>> APIs. >>> >>> This pull request is based on a merge of v3.8-rc3, and arm-soc's >>> depends/rmk-perf branch. >> >> This one looks like it should also be based on your cleanup, since it has >> conflicts with it. Please rebase accordingly. > > By the way, just in case this looks like a random request... > > A few merge conflicts between independent topic branches is not a big > deal; we can deal with those. > > What's somewhat annoying though, is when a previous cleanup branch > conflicts with later features. So, please base features on top of > cleanups accordingly. Hmm. And here I was thinking that I was basing branches on top of each-other too much given your previous comments about merge conflicts being OK! In case it helps, the following commit in linux-next shows the conflict resolution: ee05948 Merge branch 'for-3.9/scu-base-rework' into for-3.9/soc-t114 I guess I missed this because I didn't merge for-3.9/scu-base-rework into my for-next on its own, but only as part of for-3.9/soc-t114, within which I had resolved the conflict as above. So, you could just skip this pull request, and it'll be pulled in when you merge for-3.9/soc-t114. It that doesn't work for you, I can do the rebase tomorrow morning. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
