[GIT PULL] DaVinci cleanups for v3.4

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 28 February 2012, Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> I guess the cleanest way to do that would have been to let
> these patches go through my tree with appropriate maintainer
> acks (but that obviously didn't happen - will try and fix
> that for future). Per my understanding, it is encouraged that
> a patch should get applied only through one tree, so I was
> reluctant to apply them to any of the branches I send to you
> after they were already in linux-next through other trees.

That is correct, we generally try to avoid duplicating commits
but instead use branches that are based on a common history
containing whatever is needed in multiple places.

Note that the patch I applied does not duplicate the ones that
went into the other trees, it recreates dummy header files
instead and needs to be reverted at some point in the future
when everything has been merged.

	Arnd