On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:45:12PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:05:42PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard > > <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:44:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > >> > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > >> > > > >> > Sorry for steping in so late, but these two patches fixes a warning > > >> > introduced by the commit 1ba9bf0a (ARM: 7762/1: kernel: fix > > >> > arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() to skip non-cpu nodes) after 3.10-rc7. > > >> > > > >> > These two patches solve the situation for sunxi. The first one by > > >> > Lorenzo is to be applied for 3.10 if it's still possible, and the > > >> > second one on top of arm-soc/for-next. Tell me if you prefer a more > > >> > formal pull request for these patches > > >> > > > >> > Thanks! > > >> > Maxime > > >> > > > >> > Lorenzo Pieralisi (1): > > >> > ARM: dts: sunxi: cpus/cpu nodes dts updates > > >> > > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ? > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the > > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to > > > 3.11? > > > > > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?) > > > > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will > > produce warnings at boot. > > > > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and > > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference? > > Ok, sorry about this guys. Technically speaking the DT bindings updates > (cpu/cpus nodes), dts updates and the ARM 7762/1 merged through Russell's > tree all are fixes, but probably we should not get them in as such. > > ARM: 7762/1 was implemented to fix the warnings caused by new dts with > topology nodes (cpu-map node), and should go to stable kernels as well > since we want those kernels to boot with new DTs. > > I should have prevented it from getting in as a fix, I really apologize. > I should also ask to drop the patch from the stable kernel queues, since this > would cause further issues (basically we should send all dts updates to > stable kernels as well, and unfortunately that's something we will have > to do anyway, when it has to be decided, if 7762/1 goes in 3.11 or later with > CC'ed stable we should send the dts updates to stable as well at the same > time). > > I think the best solution is to revert ARM 7762/1 now and re-introduce it as > a fix after 3.11, when the dust has settled, I will drop it from stable > kernels queue as well if we all agree. > > If we drop ARM 7762/1, 7764/1 needs rebasing since those patches order > unfortunately matters.
Ok, so you're saying we need to revert 1ba9bf0a and 7764/1. I couldn't find a commit corresponding to this one, however there is a commit labelled 7763/1 from you that touch the same area (18d7f152). Are these the commits that need to be reverted (and then reapplied for 3.11) ? Russell, Arnd, Olof, who should revert this patch, and through which tree? Thanks, Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
