Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 23:27:00 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	"Linux-sh list" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Renesas SoC updates for v3.4

Hi,

On Friday, March 09, 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 09 March 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Friday, March 09, 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 09 March 2012, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Please pull Renesas SoC updates for v3.4 since commit
> > > > ce8fea7aa4ad9e3b40999a08622ef27c77159659:
> > > > 
> > > >     mmap: EINVAL not ENOMEM when rejecting VM_GROWS
> > > > 
> > > > with top-most commit f57fd2100e8273af3a9d2ff67714903d2dfd1eef
> > > 
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > Please rebase this on an -rc release, otherwise we get a rather
> > > messy history in the arm-soc tree.
> > 
> > Well, OK, I can rebase it on -rc7 if there is one, unless Paul
> > has already pulled from clk_ops-rename.  Paul?
> 
> Why not rebase back to -rc6?

Well, I can do that too, if I have to, but still I'd like to be sure that
Paul hasn't pulled from the clk_ops-rename branch yet.
 
> > > For next time, I think it would be good to make those things separate pull
> > > requests, since they are all rather big. In particular, the clk rework
> > > could be a series by itself.
> > 
> > It is a series by itself.  You can readily pull it from clk_ops-rename even. :-)
> > 
> > I'm not sure, though, what exactly the point of this would be.
> 
> Mostly it helps make obvious which things are logically connected.
> Another reason is that when one of the branches has a problem, we
> can still pull all the other ones. 
> Finally, we sometimes make new topic branches in the arm-soc tree
> when a lot of maintainers send similar things, e.g. we had a 
> 'next/clk' branch in the past that half of your patches would
> have applied to (this time we don't have one of those). By having
> more branches for logically separate things, it allows us to group
> them in more flexible ways across platforms.

OK

> It's not very important this time, so I didn't ask you to rebase
> them just for that.

OK, thanks!

> > > arnd@...ppe2:~/linux-arm$ git grep -w __io arch/arm/mach-* | grep -v __typesafe
> > > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/core.c:   gic_init(0, 29, __io(CNS3XXX_TC11MP_GIC_DIST_BASE_VIRT),
> > > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/core.c:            __io(CNS3XXX_TC11MP_GIC_CPU_BASE_VIRT));
> > > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/core.c:   u32 __iomem *pm_base = __io(CNS3XXX_PM_BASE_VIRT);
> > > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/core.c:   cns3xxx_tmr1 = __io(CNS3XXX_TIMER1_2_3_BASE_VIRT);
> > > arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/devices.c:        u32 __iomem *gpioa = __io(CNS3XXX_MISC_BASE_VIRT + 0x0014);
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/generic.c:   vic_init(__io(io_p2v(NETX_PA_VIC)), 0, ~0, 0);
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_SYSTEM_REG(ofs)            __io(NETX_VA_SYSTEM + (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_GPIO_REG(ofs)                     __io(NETX_VA_GPIO + (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_PIO_REG(ofs)        __io(NETX_VA_PIO + (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_MIIMU           __io(NETX_VA_MIIMU)
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_PFIFO_REG(ofs)               __io(NETX_VA_PFIFO + (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_MEMCR_REG(ofs)               __io(NETX_VA_MEMCR + (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_DPMAS_REG(ofs)               __io(NETX_VA_DPMAS + (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-netx/include/mach/netx-regs.h:#define NETX_I2C_REG(ofs)   __io(NETX_VA_I2C, (ofs))
> > > arch/arm/mach-realview/include/mach/hardware.h:#define __io_address(n)          __io(IO_ADDRESS(n))
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-ag5evm.c:  l2x0_init(__io(0xf0100000), 0x00460000, 0xc2000fff);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-bonito.c:  l2x0_init(__io(0xf0002000), 0x40440000, 0x82000fff);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-kota2.c:   l2x0_init(__io(0xf0100000), 0x40460000, 0x82000fff);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/include/mach/io.h:#define __io(a)                        ((void __iomem *)(a))
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-r8a7779.c:  void __iomem *gic_dist_base = __io(0xf0001000);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-r8a7779.c:  void __iomem *gic_cpu_base = __io(0xf0000100);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-sh73a0.c:   void __iomem *gic_dist_base = __io(0xf0001000);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/intc-sh73a0.c:   void __iomem *gic_cpu_base = __io(0xf0000100);
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7779.c:   __raw_writel(__pa(shmobile_secondary_vector), __io(AVECR));
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-sh73a0.c:    if (((__raw_readl(__io(PSTR)) >> (4 * cpu)) & 3) == 3)
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-sh73a0.c:            __raw_writel(1 << cpu, __io(WUPCR));    /* wake up */
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-sh73a0.c:            __raw_writel(1 << cpu, __io(SRESCR));   /* reset */
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-sh73a0.c:    __raw_writel(0, __io(APARMBAREA));      /* 4k */
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-sh73a0.c:    __raw_writel(__pa(shmobile_secondary_vector), __io(SBAR));
> > > arch/arm/mach-ux500/include/mach/hardware.h:#define __io_address(n)             __io(IO_ADDRESS(n))
> > > 
> > > These are all broken and need to be changed to something else before we add the
> > > global definition for __io.
> > 
> > While I generally agree with that, I think it's not super-urgent, is it?
> 
> No, it's not. I just wanted to let you all know now so we don't forget it.

OK

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists