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;
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 12:23:13 +0000
From:   Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "James Qian Wang (Arm Technology China)" <james.qian.wang@arm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mali-dp tree
Message-ID: <20190115122313.GR20661@e110455-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190115104619.516be4b9@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20190115101219.GP20661@e110455-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20190115214725.360798cf@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20190115105102.GQ20661@e110455-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20190115120836.GN10517@phenom.ffwll.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190115120836.GN10517@phenom.ffwll.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.2 (2019-01-07)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:51:02AM +0000, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:47:25PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Liviu,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:12:19 +0000 Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That looks like the right fix, thank you for that!
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your verification.
> > > 
> > > > I will roll your patch into my tree.
> > > 
> > > You can only do that when your tree is merged with the drm tree (and
> > > it should be part of the merge resolution).
> > 
> > I can also rebase on top of the latest drm-next tree, that should not be
> > a problem.
> 
> If you have a lot of patches already rebasing is kinda discouraged. There
> might be other stuff that's conflicting and then making your entire tree
> non-bisectable (maybe just on one platform that you missed in testing).

My tree has always been "unstable", I have been rebasing it on top of
latest drm or drm-next in preparation for sending pull requests. I've hoped
that people don't depend on the linearity of my tree anyway and it hasn't
been an issue so far.

TBH, I should've based the latest update of my tree on drm-next anyway, I
just started at the time when it was at v5.0-rc1 so I thought it will not
matter.

Best regards,
Liviu

> 
> In that case just send out a pull for drm-next and include the merge
> resolution in the pull request so Dave/I can double-check we did it right.
> -Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯