Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the mm-stable tree

Christophe Leroy writes: > Le 29/02/2024 à 07:37, Michael Ellerman a écrit : >> Stephen Rothwell writes: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: >>> >>>arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c >>> >>> between commit: >>> >>>a5e8131a0329 ("arm64, powerpc,

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the mm-stable tree

Le 29/02/2024 à 07:37, Michael Ellerman a écrit : > Stephen Rothwell writes: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: >> >>arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c >> >> between commit: >> >>a5e8131a0329 ("arm64, powerpc, riscv, s390, x86: ptdump: refactor

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the mm-stable tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c > > between commit: > > a5e8131a0329 ("arm64, powerpc, riscv, s390, x86: ptdump: refactor > CONFIG_DEBUG_WX") > > from the mm-stable tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the kbuild tree

Hi all, On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:16:06 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/Makefile > > between commit: > > ce697ccee1a8 ("kbuild: remove head-y syntax") > > from the kbuild tree and commit: > > dfc3095cec27

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the kbuild tree

Hi all, On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:12:05 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile > > between commit: > > 321648455061 ("kbuild: use obj-y instead extra-y for objects placed at the > head") > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 tree

Catalin Marinas writes: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Stephen Rothwell writes: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: >> > >> > arch/Kconfig >> > >> > between commit: >> > >> > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 10:08:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Stephen Rothwell writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > arch/Kconfig > > > > > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Stephen Rothwell writes: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/Kconfig > > > > between commit: > > > > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/Kconfig > > between commit: > > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel with RELR > relocations") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > 0c9c1d563975 ("x86,

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the dma-mapping tree

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:43:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Stephen Rothwell writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-swiotlb.c > > > > between commit: > > > > cfced786969c ("dma-mapping: remove the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the dma-mapping tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/kernel/dma-swiotlb.c > > between commit: > > cfced786969c ("dma-mapping: remove the default map_resource implementation") > > from the dma-mapping tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the m68k tree

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:42 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > [forgot the conflict resolution ...] > > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:27:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > > wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the m68k tree

Hi Stephen, On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:42 AM Stephen Rothwell wrote: > [forgot the conflict resolution ...] > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:27:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/m68k/mac/misc.c > > > > between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the m68k tree

Hi all, [forgot the conflict resolution ...] On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:27:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/m68k/mac/misc.c > > between commit: > > 5b9bfb8ec467 ("m68k: mac: Use time64_t in RTC handling") > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_spapr_tce.c > > between commit: > > 1463edca6734 ("vfio/spapr: Use IOMMU pageshift rather than pagesize") > > from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the kbuild tree

Hi all, On Thu, 31 May 2018 09:32:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c > > between commit: > > 06aeb9e3f2bc ("powerpc/kbuild: move -mprofile-kernel check to Kconfig") > > from the kbuild

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/ftrace.h > > between commit: > > edf6a2dfe388 ("powerpc/trace/syscalls: Update syscall name matching logic > to account for ppc_

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h > arch/powerpc/kernel/dt_cpu_ftrs.c > > between commit: > > a5d4b5891c2f ("powerpc/mm: Fixup tlbie vs store ordering issue

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c > > between commit: > > 349524bc0da6 ("powerpc: Don't preempt_disable() in show_cpuinfo()") > > from the powerpc-fixes tree and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:51:33 + Mark Brown wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c > > between commit: > > ac64115a66c1 ("KVM: PPC: Fix oops when checking KVM_CAP_PPC_HTM") > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/asm-prototypes.h > > between commit: > > 9e5f68842276 ("powerpc: Fix missing CRCs, add more asm-prototypes.h > declarations") > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 10:54 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2016/06/29 10:35AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > > between commit: > > > > 844e3be47693 ("powerpc/bpf/jit: Disable classic BPF

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with Linus' tree

On 2016/06/29 10:35AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, Hi Stephen, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > between commit: > > 844e3be47693 ("powerpc/bpf/jit: Disable classic BPF JIT on ppc64le") Ah, I see that the above commit

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:51:27AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: On 03/08/2012 09:13 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:39 +, Russell King wrote: On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

On 03/08/2012 09:13 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:39 +, Russell King wrote: On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If I remove it, then I get Kconfig warnings:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:52 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:51 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Mikey, On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling mi...@neuling.org wrote: Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If I remove it, then I get Kconfig warnings: warning: (PPC) selects SPARSE_IRQ which has unmet direct dependencies (HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:39 +, Russell King wrote: On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If I remove it, then I get Kconfig warnings: warning: (PPC) selects SPARSE_IRQ which has

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in arch/powerpc/Kconfig between commit 2ed86b16eabe (irq: make SPARSE_IRQ an optionally hidden option) from the arm tree and commit ad5b7f1350c2 (powerpc: Make SPARSE_IRQ required) from the powerpc tree. I fixed it up (see below)

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

Hi Mikey, On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling mi...@neuling.org wrote: Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. In fact, keeping MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ seems to make SPARSE_IRQ user selectable, which we don't want anymore since ad5b7f1350c2. Yes,

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm tree

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:51 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Mikey, On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling mi...@neuling.org wrote: Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. In fact, keeping MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ seems to make SPARSE_IRQ user

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Paul, Ben, Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in arch/powerpc/Kconfig between commit 4e491d14f2506b218d678935c25a7027b79178b1 (ftrace: support for PowerPC) from the ftrace tree and commit

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 21:01 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: Since I haven't heard back from Ben [1] on ide-pmac/media-bay IRQ issue I took another look at ide-pmac patches and I think that it should be possible to rework them in such way that consecutive ide patches ( 100) won't

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 23:07 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in drivers/macintosh/mediabay.c between commit 7ad963b103d3863b1161c59f3e65a435979804ed (ide-pmac: media-bay support fixes (take 4)) from the ide tree and commit

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:54:26 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree

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