Message ID | 20110630091019.GJ23145@atomide.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> [110630 04:20]: > On Thursday 30 June 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > The cleanups all look great, with one exception (see below). In the > future, I'd prefer to get separate pull requests for cleanups and > bug fixes, but no need to worry about it this time. Sure no problem. > > I have not added this into linux next assuming that you will > > do it. If not, please let me know and I will add it. > > Right, I'll ask Stephen to add the master branch of the arm-soc > tree to linux-next soon, after I've made sure that there are no > conflicts with existing branches that get merged there. Thanks. It merged fine into yesterday's linux-next when I tried. > For our upstream submission, my preference would be to send them > piecemeal to Linus and group them across the branches as > appropriate. Sure. We need to base omap board-*.c related changes on top of this branch though to avoid build failures with merges. > > omap: Set separate timer init functions to avoid cpu_is_omap tests > > This commit causes a build regression for me in some configurations. > If you agree, I'd apply this patch on top: > > 8<------- > omap2+: fix build regression > > board-generic.c now contains a reference to omap3_timer, but depends only > on ARCH_OMAP2, not on ARCH_OMAP3, which controls that symbol. > omap2_timer seems to be more appropriate anyway, so use that instead. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Thanks for fixing that, here's my ack: Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c > @@ -72,5 +72,5 @@ MACHINE_START(OMAP_GENERIC, "Generic OMAP24xx") > .init_early = omap_generic_init_early, > .init_irq = omap2_init_irq, > .init_machine = omap_generic_init, > - .timer = &omap3_timer, > + .timer = &omap2_timer, > MACHINE_END