From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: OMAP2+: PM: core support for SMPS regulators for v3.4
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:44:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120403184426.GJ8240@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pqchv1pc.fsf@ti.com>
* Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [120312 16:30]:
> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
> >
> >> > The branch itself is essentially stable but I'm not enthused about the
> >> > idea of merging the whole thing via the OMAP tree.
> >
> >> Right, I wasn't suggesting we merge it via OMAP tree. I was just
> >> looking for a stable point we could use as s dependency when merging
> >> everything together for the arm-soc tree.
> >
> > Well, if you don't base the OMAP changes that depend on it off the
> > regulator changes then you'll break bisection as you'll have a bunch of
> > commits which won't have all their dependencies present on a branch
> > (since they're not present in the branch point and aren't otherwise
> > merged in), if bisect goes down that branch it'll be miserable. That
> > seems bad and while I've not run into it with OMAP in particular it's
> > rather painful when it does happen.
> >
> > It's much better if the branch has the required changes merged into it
> > prior to their being used.
>
> OK.
>
> Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies
> merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree.
Pulled in this into pm-regulator branch finally.
Tony
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] ARM: OMAP2+: PM: core support for SMPS regulators for v3.4
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:44:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120403184426.GJ8240@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pqchv1pc.fsf@ti.com>
* Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [120312 16:30]:
> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes:
> >
> >> > The branch itself is essentially stable but I'm not enthused about the
> >> > idea of merging the whole thing via the OMAP tree.
> >
> >> Right, I wasn't suggesting we merge it via OMAP tree. I was just
> >> looking for a stable point we could use as s dependency when merging
> >> everything together for the arm-soc tree.
> >
> > Well, if you don't base the OMAP changes that depend on it off the
> > regulator changes then you'll break bisection as you'll have a bunch of
> > commits which won't have all their dependencies present on a branch
> > (since they're not present in the branch point and aren't otherwise
> > merged in), if bisect goes down that branch it'll be miserable. That
> > seems bad and while I've not run into it with OMAP in particular it's
> > rather painful when it does happen.
> >
> > It's much better if the branch has the required changes merged into it
> > prior to their being used.
>
> OK.
>
> Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies
> merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree.
Pulled in this into pm-regulator branch finally.
Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-03 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-07 20:14 [GIT PULL] ARM: OMAP2+: PM: core support for SMPS regulators for v3.4 Kevin Hilman
2012-03-07 20:14 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-08 2:18 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-03-08 2:18 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-03-08 18:09 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-08 18:09 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-09 0:32 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-03-09 0:32 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-03-09 11:47 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-09 11:47 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-09 15:29 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-09 15:29 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-11 20:42 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-11 20:42 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-12 17:26 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-12 17:26 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-12 17:32 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-12 17:32 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-12 23:28 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-12 23:28 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-27 13:57 ` Grazvydas Ignotas
2012-03-27 13:57 ` Grazvydas Ignotas
2012-03-27 17:04 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-03-27 17:04 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-03-27 17:49 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-27 17:49 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-04-03 18:44 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2012-04-03 18:44 ` Tony Lindgren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120403184426.GJ8240@atomide.com \
--to=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.