Re: [Xen-devel] linux-next: manual merge of the xen-tip tree with the arm64 tree

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:00:41PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   3194ac6e66cc ("arm64: Move unflatten_device_tree() call earlier.")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   3915fea959b6 ("ARM: XEN: Move xen_early_init() before efi_init()")
> > 
> > from the xen-tip tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> 
> Thanks Stephen, looks good to me.

It looks good to me too.

 
> > diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > index 65f515949baa,7cf992fe6684..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > @@@ -277,13 -336,13 +278,11 @@@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p
> >   
> >     early_ioremap_reset();
> >   
> >  -  if (acpi_disabled) {
> >  -          unflatten_device_tree();
> >  +  if (acpi_disabled)
> >             psci_dt_init();
> >  -  } else {
> >  +  else
> >             psci_acpi_init();
> >  -  }
> >   
> > -   xen_early_init();
> > - 
> >     cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
> >     smp_init_cpus();
> >     smp_build_mpidr_hash();
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel