Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180627150126.GC5263@sirena.org.uk>
References: <cover.1529712888.git.collinsd@codeaurora.org> <35c4ea70cdf5caba560fb6f40e866ee8bc456d93.1529712888.git.collinsd@codeaurora.org>
 <CAD=FV=XVEEPgjBXxR+-46RgxLOq63Xvq-jtruoaCxccmMoKUuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180626120733.GD1779@sirena.org.uk> <CAD=FV=X1E8Cz=L93G-zJwhM0R=N3YuBBhkvCnLvWuxMU9KJkTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180626150203.GG1779@sirena.org.uk> <CAD=FV=WC_XWRk-6OELOFFWGnhRq1VeoiiveqXLSy+xqsVb22pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180627150126.GC5263@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:28:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WYcCVjAiMpzf4zyAByw5y-oDMnuabip1HXqa-mQFRt2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:15:14AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> I think he's still planning on re-shuffling his tree a bit.  When he
>> does this, do you need him to put the RPMh patches somewhere you can
>> merge into your tree?
>
> Well, I *think* there's no actual dependency here since it's a new
> driver with a Kconfig dependency.  It really just needs me to get round
> to trawling through what's a fairly large patch with a troubled history
> now you've reviewed it.

OK, great.  I guess I'm confused about the "|| COMPILE_TEST" causing
problems then?  I was worried that anyone trying to do "COMPILE_TEST"
on your tree (or linuxnext if RPMh isn't there) would get failures due
to the lack of header files.  I guess if it's a problem you could just
gut the "|| COMPILE_TEST" and it could be added back in later?

Hoping my reviews saved you time overall.

-Doug