| Message ID | 1415604709-24185-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Olof, > > You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of > those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing > compilation errors. > This patch fixes those compilation errors. > Applied on next/cleanup, thanks! Arnd
Hi Arnd, On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Olof, > > > > You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of > > those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing > > compilation errors. > > This patch fixes those compilation errors. > > > > Applied on next/cleanup, thanks! Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof had already fixed the initial compilation error. This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h inclusion. [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398 Best Regards, Boris
On Thursday 20 November 2014 13:46:15 Boris Brezillon wrote: > Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof > had already fixed the initial compilation error. > This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h > inclusion. > > [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398 > Sorry about this. Do you want to send an add-on patch to change that one line, or should we just keep the current version? Arnd
On 20/11/2014 13:46, Boris Brezillon : > Hi Arnd, > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100 > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Hi Olof, >>> >>> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of >>> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing >>> compilation errors. >>> This patch fixes those compilation errors. >>> >> >> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks! > > Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof > had already fixed the initial compilation error. > This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h > inclusion. > > [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398 And this v2 was included in the pull-request I made and that Arnd have just taken (at91-cleanup2 tag). It seems that the files still have the "#include <asm/irq.h>" in the result branch. So, Arnd can whether remove the following commit (in next/cleanup): 440ae45119e9 (ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs) or we can add another patch just to remove these additional lines. Arnd, what do you prefer? Bye,
On Thursday 20 November 2014 14:32:29 Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 20/11/2014 13:46, Boris Brezillon : > > Hi Arnd, > > > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100 > > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > >> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> Hi Olof, > >>> > >>> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of > >>> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing > >>> compilation errors. > >>> This patch fixes those compilation errors. > >>> > >> > >> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks! > > > > Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof > > had already fixed the initial compilation error. > > This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h > > inclusion. > > > > [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398 > > And this v2 was included in the pull-request I made and that Arnd have > just taken (at91-cleanup2 tag). > > It seems that the files still have the "#include <asm/irq.h>" in the > result branch. > > So, Arnd can whether remove the following commit (in next/cleanup): > 440ae45119e9 (ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs) > or we can add another patch just to remove these additional lines. > > Arnd, what do you prefer? I don't want to change the merge I already did, so just send a patch that I can apply on top. Arnd
On 20/11/2014 16:26, Arnd Bergmann : > On Thursday 20 November 2014 14:32:29 Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 20/11/2014 13:46, Boris Brezillon : >>> Hi Arnd, >>> >>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:23:34 +0100 >>> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday 10 November 2014, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>>>> Hi Olof, >>>>> >>>>> You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of >>>>> those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing >>>>> compilation errors. >>>>> This patch fixes those compilation errors. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Applied on next/cleanup, thanks! >>> >>> Actually, I've made a v2 of this patch (see [1]) after realizing Olof >>> had already fixed the initial compilation error. >>> This is pretty much the same patch, except it removes asm/irq.h >>> inclusion. >>> >>> [1]http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/370398 >> >> And this v2 was included in the pull-request I made and that Arnd have >> just taken (at91-cleanup2 tag). >> >> It seems that the files still have the "#include <asm/irq.h>" in the >> result branch. >> >> So, Arnd can whether remove the following commit (in next/cleanup): >> 440ae45119e9 (ARM: at91: remove useless init_time for DT-only SoCs) >> or we can add another patch just to remove these additional lines. >> >> Arnd, what do you prefer? > > I don't want to change the merge I already did, so just send a patch > that I can apply on top. Sure I will. I will then add it to my next "cleanup" pull-request to you. Thanks for your help, bye.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c index dd03f65..2ad0db4 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c @@ -34,13 +34,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9g45_initialize(void) at91_sysirq_mask_rtt(AT91SAM9G45_BASE_RTT); } -static void __init at91sam9g45_init_time(void) -{ - at91sam926x_pit_init(NR_IRQS_LEGACY + AT91_ID_SYS); -} - AT91_SOC_START(at91sam9g45) .map_io = at91sam9g45_map_io, .init = at91sam9g45_initialize, - .init_time = at91sam9g45_init_time, AT91_SOC_END diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c index 6ca7fc5..bd7e568 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c @@ -46,13 +46,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9rl_initialize(void) at91_sysirq_mask_rtt(AT91SAM9RL_BASE_RTT); } -static void __init at91sam9rl_init_time(void) -{ - at91sam926x_pit_init(NR_IRQS_LEGACY + AT91_ID_SYS); -} - AT91_SOC_START(at91sam9rl) .map_io = at91sam9rl_map_io, .init = at91sam9rl_initialize, - .init_time = at91sam9rl_init_time, AT91_SOC_END
Commits bcf8c7e7703bb2bbde66bec26a81fed4be9cd1d4 and 4bf7753b8ab7c704ca864b1653367ea9cfe68a25 introduced compilation errors ("error: 'NR_IRQS_LEGACY' undeclared (first use in this function)") because they remove the asm/irq.h inclusion while the init_time function needs it for the NR_IRQS_LEGACY definition. In the other hand, the point of these commits is to remove board file support, and init_time is only needed when booting non-DT boards, we can thus safely remove init_time functions. Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> --- Hi Olof, You recently pulled some changes on Nicolas' at91-cleanup tag and two of those commits (see above for commit hashes) are actually introducing compilation errors. This patch fixes those compilation errors. Best Regards, Boris arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c | 6 ------ arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c | 6 ------ 2 files changed, 12 deletions(-)