From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:41:57 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL] Allwinner DT changes for 4.4, round 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4745252.gLSrJNQ42D@wuerfel> <9946613.K7Ehp1DEiL@wuerfel> <20151025201308.GS10947@lukather> <20151026010752.GG14238@localhost> <20151026054828.GD4216@localhost> <20151026103409.GX10947@lukather> <20151102191923.GO19782@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20151102194157.GR19782@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/02, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 10/31, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Maxime Ripard > >> > > >> > Gaah, sorry... > >> > > >> >> I've merged this in now. Note that this has resulted in a tree that won't > >> >> misect cleanly, since having the clk contents merged instead of used as a base > >> >> for the dt branch means that you could end up in a bisect state that has the DT > >> >> branch but not the clk branch. > >> > > >> > Even if it has been merged before the DT patches have been applied? > >> > That's not really what I'd expect from bisect :/ > >> > >> Yeah, due to the way bisect works, the only way to guarantee > >> bisectability is if you base the DT branch on top of the clk branch > >> when you build it. Otherwise the bisect can come down the path of only > >> having the DT contents not the clk contents. > > > > Why can't the dts changes be applied directly on top of the > > branch that's in the clk tree and then sent off to arm-soc? The > > git merge && git commit technique also works, but it introduces > > an unnecessary merge commit into the history. > > "base the DT branch on top of the clk branch" is exactly that, isn't it? > Yes. I mostly wanted to point out that you don't need to do the git merge part when building that branch. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project