[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1376427839.4255.10.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:03:59 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12
On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 16:40 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> There seems to be conflict in the new function "of_get_cpu_node" added.
> PowerPC also defines the same function name. Further microblaze and
> openrisc declares it(can be removed) but doesn't define it.
> To fix this:
> 1. I can rename the newly added function to something different like
> `of_get_cpunode` or
> 2. If of_* namespace should be used by only OF/FDT and not by any
> architecture specific code, then the arch specific version can be
> renamed to some thing like arch_of_get_cpu_node.
> Also most of the calls to arch specific function can be moved to
> generic code.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
What is your new function about ? Does it perform the same job as the
one in powerpc ? If yes, make sure you have the same signature and
either copy the powerpc one over to a generic place or make the generic
one weak if you don't want the powerpc thread counting logic.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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