Subject: [GIT PULL] Allwinner DT changes for 4.4, round 3

From: [email-masked] (Maxime Ripard)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 16:04:03 -0800

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:19:23AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >> I've merged this in now. Note that this has resulted in a tree that won't
> > >> misect cleanly, since having the clk contents merged instead of used as a base
> > >> for the dt branch means that you could end up in a bisect state that has the DT
> > >> branch but not the clk branch.
> > >
> > > Even if it has been merged before the DT patches have been applied?
> > > That's not really what I'd expect from bisect :/
> > 
> > Yeah, due to the way bisect works, the only way to guarantee
> > bisectability is if you base the DT branch on top of the clk branch
> > when you build it. Otherwise the bisect can come down the path of only
> > having the DT contents not the clk contents.
> 
> Why can't the dts changes be applied directly on top of the
> branch that's in the clk tree and then sent off to arm-soc? The
> git merge && git commit technique also works, but it introduces
> an unnecessary merge commit into the history.

Wouldn't that mean that you have to rebase your whole DT branch
whenever a single patch introduces a dependency on some clock patch?

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20151108/9ad61516/attachment-0001.sig>