Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946459Ab2ESBSm (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2012 21:18:42 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:44589 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759870Ab2ESBSk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2012 21:18:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:1b02:1aa9:5ff:fe24:37a9] In-Reply-To: <20120518225625.28C643E07C8@localhost> References: <20120515154333.6659.66479.sendpatchset@w520> <201205162205.09082.rjw@sisk.pl> <201205170037.34305.rjw@sisk.pl> <20120518225625.28C643E07C8@localhost> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:18:39 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Emma Mobile GPIO driver V2 From: Olof Johansson To: Grant Likely Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Walleij , Magnus Damm , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, horms@verge.net.au, lethal@linux-sh.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2416 Lines: 51 On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:54:16 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Magnus Damm wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Do you guys have any preferences how to merge this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Can I include it together with the EMEV2 SoC bits perhaps? That may be >> >> >> > easy so we can keep track of the platform data header file dependency. >> >> >> >> >> >> For ux500 I made a special "gpio and pins" branch and sent through ARM SoC. >> >> > >> >> > The problem is we have a patch depending on the $subject one in the EMEV2 >> >> > series and it would be better to keep them both together if that's not >> >> > a big deal. >> >> >> >> Dependencies are fine, as long as they are not circular. You can >> >> either pull in the gpio/pins branch into the EMEV2 branch, or base it >> >> on it. >> > >> > I guess I'll try to merge the gpio/pins into the EMEV2 branch. >> >> By the way, I should have mentioned that if the dependencies are only >> for building and not for context when applying patches, then it's >> sufficient to let us know in the pull request so we merge the branches >> in the right order when sending to Linus (so we maintain >> bisectability). > > Really? ?I don't think that works. The actually commit point will > always be unbuildable regardless of the merge order in mainline. ?If > there is a dependency then the dependency must be merged into the > working branch before applying the commit. Not if the prerequisite commit sits in a branch that is merged before the dependent commit. A git bisect should never end up in a situation where the second commit is included but the first is not. Either that, or I have completely misunderstood how it works. Of course, this assumes that the dependency is one-way, and not mutual. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/