From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751239Ab2AGFiL (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2012 00:38:11 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:51464 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750967Ab2AGFiK (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2012 00:38:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:48:31 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hui Wang , Russell King , Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Message-ID: <20120107054829.GF4790@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> References: <20120106120345.8157a839b1c924315d728eea@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20120106120345.8157a839b1c924315d728eea@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 12:03:45PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c between commit 9bdd46257ab3 ("ARM: plat-mxc: > hook special idle handlers to arm_pm_idle") from the arm tree and commit > 010dc8af8f28 ("ARM: mx5: use generic irq chip pm interface for pm > functions on") from the arm-soc tree. > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. Hi Stephen, When I was testing this fix on next-20120106, I spotted another compile error from this file. CC arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.o arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c:58:24: error: redefinition of ‘mx50_io_desc’ arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c:48:24: note: previous definition of ‘mx50_io_desc’ was here arch/arm/mach-imx/mm-imx5.c:48:24: warning: ‘mx50_io_desc’ defined but not used The fix could just be removing the duplication. -- Regards, Shawn 8<---- @@ -53,16 +54,6 @@ static struct map_desc mx50_io_desc[] __initdata = { }; /* - * Define the MX50 memory map. - */ -static struct map_desc mx50_io_desc[] __initdata = { - imx_map_entry(MX50, TZIC, MT_DEVICE), - imx_map_entry(MX50, SPBA0, MT_DEVICE), - imx_map_entry(MX50, AIPS1, MT_DEVICE), - imx_map_entry(MX50, AIPS2, MT_DEVICE), -}; - -/*