From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:54:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] make dt_scan_depth1_nodes more readable In-Reply-To: References: <20160425105340.GE16065@arm.com> <20160425111938.GK16065@arm.com> Message-ID: <20160425125440.GN16065@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:24:03PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:04:53PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:25:11AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > From: Mark Rutland > > > > > > > > > > Improve the readability of dt_scan_depth1_nodes by removing the nested > > > > > conditionals. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Note: this patch is based on xentip/for-linus-4.7 > > > > > > > > So how should I merge it? :/ > > > > > > I think that if you would like to merge it, it would be easier this time > > > for me to carry it in my tree. Otherwise you would have to base your > > > for-linus-4.7 on xentip/for-linus-4.7 and send the pull request after > > > the Xen pull request -- undesirable. > > > > Ok, doesn't look like we'll run into conflicts. I just find it weird that > > you'd have a patch with no functional change as a dependency, hence my > > preference to queue it in the arm64 tree (where conflicts are more likely). > > I see, that makes sense. In that case, would you be happy to take: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/xen/tip.git/commit/?h=for-linus-4.7&id=df115bb0a0b8ad2f6dc62f8d094c21e77b367e7c > > in your tree? That would get rid of any cross dependecies between the > two tree. I can take that and the other patch on top too. Will