From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: OMAP and arm-soc's for-next branch Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 18:14:42 +0000 Message-ID: <201203241814.43002.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120324122256.GA5611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120324125029.GA29335@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:53190 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755904Ab2CXSV3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:21:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120324125029.GA29335@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Olof Johansson , Tony Lindgren , Tomi Valkeinen On Saturday 24 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:22:56PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > I've just re-merged the build tree for the nightly builds so it's now > > based on v3.3, and pulled in the latest for-next from arm-soc. > > > > I notice that the problem I reported earlier (see the "arm-soc + rmk's > > tree boot failure on OMAP4430SDP" thread), which results in OMAP > > being totally unable to boot, is still present. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, as long as this remains unfixed in arm-soc, > > arm-soc is not to push any branch containing the broken commit > > (3ec2decb) upstream. > > Just noticed that the fix for this has already been pushed into mainline. > So, what this means is that anyone trying to bisect across this merge > window with an OMAP platform will hit a range of commits which just won't > boot. That's really great stuff when the merge window contains the most > probable set of commits for causing issues which would need to be bisected. I had already pulled the omap_dss2 branch from Tomi into the next/cleanup branch of arm-soc, in order to resolve a bunch of merge conflicts that we discussed earlier. This should limit the number of broken commits in the history to five, and I could reduce that further to two commits if I rebuild the next/cleanup branch in a different order, but I think it's not worth it for that. I definitely agree that the cleanup branches need a little more care. The idea is really that large bug harmless changes go in there, also to help simplify the bisection process. If stuff breaks in the cleanups, I consider that worse than bugs that come in through new code. Arnd