Tons of "no unit name" spam with make dtbs

Tons of "no unit name" spam with make dtbs

[Tony Lindgren]

Hey Rob,

I'm seeing tons of dtc spam with make dtbs (about 23k lines
with multi_v7_defconfig!) with commit fa38a82096a1 ("scripts/dtc:
Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd").

Introducing something like this few days with merge window
about to open seems to be in the "a bit intrusive" category
to me :)

Probably some of these changes should be reverted?

Regards,

Tony

Tons of "no unit name" spam with make dtbs

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> Hey Rob,
>
> I'm seeing tons of dtc spam with make dtbs (about 23k lines
> with multi_v7_defconfig!) with commit fa38a82096a1 ("scripts/dtc:
> Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd").
>
> Introducing something like this few days with merge window
> about to open seems to be in the "a bit intrusive" category
> to me :)
>
> Probably some of these changes should be reverted?

It is in -next, but I'm not planning to send to Linus this cycle.

Rob

Tons of "no unit name" spam with make dtbs

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 07:23:23PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> > Hey Rob,
> >
> > I'm seeing tons of dtc spam with make dtbs (about 23k lines
> > with multi_v7_defconfig!) with commit fa38a82096a1 ("scripts/dtc:
> > Update to upstream version 53bf130b1cdd").
> >
> > Introducing something like this few days with merge window
> > about to open seems to be in the "a bit intrusive" category
> > to me :)
> >
> > Probably some of these changes should be reverted?
> 
> It is in -next, but I'm not planning to send to Linus this cycle.

Then it shouldn't be in -next.  -next is a tree for integration testing
and conflict discovery for the upcoming merge window, and should only
contain code targetted at that merge window.  Here's a reminder of
sfr's boilerplate which lays this out:

  Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next.  As
  you may know, this is not a judgment of your code.  The purpose of
  linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
  conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.

  You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
  been:
     * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
        Signed-off-by,
     * posted to the relevant mailing list,
     * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
     * successfully unit tested, and
     * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

It seems it doesn't satisfy the last point there.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.