linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c between commit
4eac6a8b17ce5ebe66eb94b6a0b43aa3a2bf7ea6 ("i2c-mpc: Convert to an
of_platform driver") from the i2c tree and commits
22fb7d9be593181e2f779cf7a8421703a6be713b ("[POWERPC] fsl: Add warning for
unrecognized I2C nodes in the device tree"),
64f9b5ee17ee7974d7cc58d75221432d86960ba3 ("[POWERPC] fsl: Add CS4270 i2c
data to fsl_soc.c") and e026892c85571e12f11abffde5a90bcc704d663e
("[POWERPC] fsl: Update fsl_soc to use cell-index property of I2C nodes")
from the powerpc tree.

The changes from the powerpc tree modify code that the i2c tree removes.
I used the i2c tree's version, but someone should check the result.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:39:05PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi Paul,

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c between commit
4eac6a8b17ce5ebe66eb94b6a0b43aa3a2bf7ea6 ("i2c-mpc: Convert to an
of_platform driver") from the i2c tree and commits

It probably would have been better for this patch to go in via the
PowerPC tree.  It only touches powerpc-specific i2c code, not any i2c
core code.  There are quite a few MPCxxxx ports which use this driver,
I'd be happier to see it dropped from the i2c tree and merged in via
either Kumar or myself.

I'd also like to see some acks from people who have tested this patch
before it goes in.  (I'm just as guilty here; I'll apply it and test it
to my tree tomorrow).

g.

On 7/3/08, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:39:05PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
 > Hi Paul,
 >
 > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
 > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c between commit
 > 4eac6a8b17ce5ebe66eb94b6a0b43aa3a2bf7ea6 ("i2c-mpc: Convert to an
 > of_platform driver") from the i2c tree and commits


It probably would have been better for this patch to go in via the
 PowerPC tree.  It only touches powerpc-specific i2c code, not any i2c
 core code.  There are quite a few MPCxxxx ports which use this driver,
 I'd be happier to see it dropped from the i2c tree and merged in via
 either Kumar or myself.

 I'd also like to see some acks from people who have tested this patch
 before it goes in.  (I'm just as guilty here; I'll apply it and test it
 to my tree tomorrow).

I'm using it in my system. It doesn't change the function of the i2c
controller, only how drivers get loaded. So if you boot and your
devices are there it is working.

Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
essentially unchanged.

I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
see it get merged.

 g.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:

Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
essentially unchanged.

I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
see it get merged.

Me too, but it is used by some of the mpc8xxx platforms too, so I'd like
to see an ack from one of those users also.

Cheers,
g.

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:

quoted

Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
essentially unchanged.

I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
see it get merged.

Me too, but it is used by some of the mpc8xxx platforms too, so I'd like
to see an ack from one of those users also.

Okay, I've tested it on my board.  All looks good to me.  I'd prefer
to hear back from one of the Freescale folks, but on a second reading
I think it is pretty safe.  I'll make sure any merge conflicts are
resolved.

Jean, is it okay with you to drop it from your tree and merge it through mine?

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:54:26 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Grant Likely [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:22:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:

quoted

Testing was good when the patch was initially posted in January. In
the last six months the initial patch set has been sliced and diced
into a bunch of different pieces but the contents of this patch are
essentially unchanged.

I don't care which tree it uses to get to mainline, I'd just like to
see it get merged.

Me too, but it is used by some of the mpc8xxx platforms too, so I'd like
to see an ack from one of those users also.

Okay, I've tested it on my board.  All looks good to me.  I'd prefer
to hear back from one of the Freescale folks, but on a second reading
I think it is pretty safe.  I'll make sure any merge conflicts are
resolved.

Jean, is it okay with you to drop it from your tree and merge it through mine?

Sure, no problem. It's done now, the patch is yours.

-- 
Jean Delvare