From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756070Ab1BYNbq (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:31:46 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:35378 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755746Ab1BYNbp (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:31:45 -0500 Message-ID: <4D67AEEE.30000@ru.mvista.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:30:22 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Likely CC: Sergei Shtylyov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Nicolas Pitre , Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] arm/dt: Basic tegra devicetree support References: <20110223021524.18318.71902.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <20110223022234.18318.90592.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <4D657880.50405@ru.mvista.com> <20110223213601.GA5404@angua.secretlab.ca> In-Reply-To: <20110223213601.GA5404@angua.secretlab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 24-02-2011 0:36, Grant Likely wrote: >>> This patch adds adds very basic support for booting tegra with a >>> device tree. It simply allows the existing machine_descs to match >>> against the tegra compatible values so that the kernel can boot. >>> Kernel parameters and the initrd pointer is read out of the tree >>> instead of atags. >>> This is not complete device tree support. This change will be >>> reverted when a new machine_desc is added that can populate the >>> device registrations directly from data in the tree instead of using >>> hard coded data. That change will be made in a future patch. >>> v2: Fixed cut-and-paste error in commit text >> Shouldn't this sentence follow the --- tearline? > Nope! It is actually quite useful for the version information to show > up in the commit text. That way you know *exactly* which version got > merged. dwmw2 pointed that out to me a few months back. Well, I think that depends on the patch. If you have say 9 revisions with significant changes (that's what I actually had) and the revision history far exceeds the original patch description, then this will just become too ugly I think... WBR, Sergei