[GIT PULL] Highbank fixes for 3.12

[Rob Herring]

On 08/15/2013 10:01 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Kevin Hilman <khilman at linaro.org> writes:
> 
>> Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman at linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin, Olof,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please pull highbank updates for 3.12.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's one trivial core ARM code change in the series to allow a
>>>>> DMA_ZONE size of 4GB. I believe this should not conflict with Russell's
>>>>> DMA mask series.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>> The following changes since commit d4e4ab86bcba5a72779c43dc1459f71fea3d89c8:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Linux 3.11-rc5 (2013-08-11 18:04:20 -0700)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>>   git://sources.calxeda.com/kernel/linux.git
>>>>> tags/highbank-lpae-fixes-for-3.12
>>>>>
>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to ce3ec1d61c5ed6af3ceaace6f57acd588c41b4d6:
>>>>>
>>>>>   ARM: highbank: fix debug uart virtual address for LPAE (2013-08-13
>>>>> 20:50:16 -0500)
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> A set of fixes for highbank to enable LPAE and selecting of necesssary
>>>>> ARM errata.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Rob Herring (6):
>>>>>       ARM: use phys_addr_t for DMA zone sizes
>>>>>       ARM: highbank: enable DMA zone for LPAE
>>>>>       ARM: highbank: select ARCH_HAS_HOLES_MEMORYMODEL
>>>>>       ARM: highbank: select required errata work-arounds
>>>>>       ARM: highbank: select ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT for LPAE
>>>>
>>>> This one seems to have broken the AMBA PL08x DMA driver, and is still
>>>> objected to by Russell, so I'll drop this one for now.
>>>
>>> Exynos does the same selection, but I guess it is not multi-platform
>>> though and doesn't select ARM_AMBA.
>>>
>>>>>       ARM: highbank: fix debug uart virtual address for LPAE
>>>>
>>>> The rest look OK and I can pull them if the rest are OK without the
>>>> objectionable one.  Let me know if that's OK, or you prefer to wait for
>>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm fine with dropping this one for now.
>>
>> OK, dropped that one and applied the rest.
> 
> OK, with 2 of the 5 patches still having problems/objections, and the
> one causing a new build warning, I've backed out this branch
> from for-next.

Wow, that went well. Sorry about that.

> Could you just respin a branch with the first 3 patches and the fix
> folded in?  I know I requested the opposite on IRC, but having a new
> pull request allows me to include your signed tag on the whole bit
> instead of me having to manually massage the branch and merge without a
> signed tag.

Will do. I've got another patch to add and will see if I can get pl081
issue sorted out in the next few days.

Rob