From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:41:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 3/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Deprecate sunxi pinctrl bindings In-Reply-To: References: <6aec73cd3b9d3dbf1085d042ec6c23f385a300de.1476971126.git-series.maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20161024194917.g5oezqc4uacsyt24@lukather> Message-ID: <20161025134150.dct42swdbwxzgbgb@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Linus, On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maxime Ripard > wrote: > > > However, it looks like the first patch from this serie is missing from > > your tree, is there a reason for that? > > No can you point it out? Sure: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-October/462500.html > > Also, in order to preserve bisectability, could you create an > > immutable branch for those sunxi patches so that I can merge the DT > > bits? > > It's too late because they are already in the devel branch > and mixed up with merged of *other* immutable stuff. Hmmmm, ok. > However I think it is plain wrong to try to keep any bisectability > between the kernel at large and arch/*/boot/dts/*, because > the DTS stuff is supposed to at some point be maintained outside > of the kernel and for all OSes, they simply shouldn't be sync:ed. Yes, in the case of a new driver that needs to be introduced, I definitely get your point. However, during a conversion like we're doing here, this is not ideal, because it essentially means that you will not have a branch that works, at all. I'll hold off on those patches until 4.11 then. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: not available URL: