From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:44:27 -0700 Subject: [GIT PULL] ARM: OMAP2+: PM: core support for SMPS regulators for v3.4 In-Reply-To: <87pqchv1pc.fsf@ti.com> References: <877gywjhht.fsf@ti.com> <20120308021843.GQ12083@atomide.com> <87399jc6cj.fsf@ti.com> <20120309003217.GB12083@atomide.com> <20120309114731.GA3273@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <87zkbp4wtj.fsf@ti.com> <20120311204232.GC3171@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <87399dzq5e.fsf@ti.com> <20120312173215.GL3110@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <87pqchv1pc.fsf@ti.com> Message-ID: <20120403184426.GJ8240@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Kevin Hilman [120312 16:30]: > Mark Brown writes: > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Mark Brown 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