Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:24:22 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24 |
| |
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:16:02AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thierry Reding
> > Yeah, I saw the devm_gpio_request_one() errors too. They happened for 3 > > boards on ARM I think. Must have forgotten to update the summary email. > > I'll see if I can come up with a patch to fix the GPIO related build > > failures, or at least report it to LinusW or Alexandre.
> Hmm.
> Please don't apply fixes like these directly to your tree, keep the > broken parts (or drop the tree that introduced it). It makes the > process of getting the fixes in where they really have to go much more > error prone, since there's no way to track whether they have landed in > the right place yet or not.
The rule I was applying (which I think is the same as Stephen applies) is that I'd fix anything that was definitely the result of a merge issue (like the build failure in misc due to a sysfs API change in the sysfs tree) but not anything that was just plain broken in the tree in isolation. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |