[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120904090132.GG24085@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:01:32 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the
arm-current tree
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 08:08:24AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 September 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/mm/mmu.c between commit a849088aa155 ("ARM: Fix ioremap() of
> > address zero") from the arm-current tree and commit c2794437091a ("ARM:
> > Add fixed PCI i/o mapping") from the arm-soc tree.
> >
> > I am not sure how to fix this, so I have used the arm-current version of
> > the change to pmd_empty_section_gap() since that changed the vm->flags.
> > It may be that just changing the vm->flags value in vm_reserve_area_early()
> > would be ok?
>
> If I read this correctly, we want pci_reserve_io to use VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING
> while pmd_empty_section_gap should use VM_ARM_EMPTY_MAPPING, so we probably
> want to add a flag argument to the vm_reserve_area_early() function.
Whereas Rob said to me that both can use VM_ARM_EMPTY_MAPPING when I
queried this conflict last week.
--
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