[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426092534.GD27312@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:25:35 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the arm64 tree
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:00:41PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 3194ac6e66cc ("arm64: Move unflatten_device_tree() call earlier.")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> 3915fea959b6 ("ARM: XEN: Move xen_early_init() before efi_init()")
>
> from the xen-tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
Thanks Stephen, looks good to me.
Will
> diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> index 65f515949baa,7cf992fe6684..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@@ -277,13 -336,13 +278,11 @@@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p
>
> early_ioremap_reset();
>
> - if (acpi_disabled) {
> - unflatten_device_tree();
> + if (acpi_disabled)
> psci_dt_init();
> - } else {
> + else
> psci_acpi_init();
> - }
>
> - xen_early_init();
> -
> cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
> smp_init_cpus();
> smp_build_mpidr_hash();
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists