From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quentin Perret Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 8/8] interconnect: sdm845: Fix build failure after cmd_db API change Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:14:40 +0000 Message-ID: <20181207171437.qmtacurmqg53zzkl@queper01-lin> References: <20181207152917.4862-1-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20181207152917.4862-9-georgi.djakov@linaro.org> <20181207162733.pdd62qvqzd6xk4nr@queper01-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Georgi Djakov Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, robh+dt@kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, khilman@baylibre.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, seansw@qti.qualcomm.com, daidavid1@codeaurora.org, evgreen@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, abailon@baylibre.com, maxime.ripard@bootlin.com, arnd@arndb.de, thierry.reding@gmail.com, ksitaraman@nvidia.com, sanjayc@nvidia.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Friday 07 Dec 2018 at 18:47:22 (+0200), Georgi Djakov wrote: > Hi Quentin, > > On 12/7/18 18:27, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Hi Georgi, > > > > On Friday 07 Dec 2018 at 17:29:17 (+0200), Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> Recently the cmd_db_read_aux_data() function was changed to avoid using > >> memcpy and return a pointer instead. Update the code to the new API and > >> fix the build failure. > >> > >> Fixes: ed3cafa79ea7 ("soc: qcom: cmd-db: Stop memcpy()ing in cmd_db_read_aux_data()") > >> Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov > >> --- > >> drivers/interconnect/qcom/sdm845.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------ > > > > IIUC this file is introduced by patch 5. Should the fix be squashed > > into patch 5 directly ? Just to keep things bisectable. > > The reason why i have split it as a separate change is because as a > separate change it would be easier to review & test for the people who > are already familiar with the rest of the series. > > Another minor reason is that a separate patch will also make the life a > bit easier for some people who are back-porting this to kernels using > the older version of the cmd_db API. > > The commit that changed the cmd_db API is not yet in mainline, but in > linux-next. I am not sure what is preferred in this case? Not sure either but I guess that will depend who gets merged first ... If that's the cmd_db change, then you'll need to squash your fix in patch 5. If your series goes first, then the fix needs to be applied to the cmb_db change. I personally don't mind either way as long as we don't break bisection :-) Thanks, Quentin