lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] ARM: defconfigs: add MTD_SPI_NOR (new dependency for M25P80)
    On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> wrote:
    > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:06:03PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
    > >> Hi Stephen,
    > >>
    > >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:39:37AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
    > >> > On 04/17/2014 01:21 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
    > >> > > These defconfigs contain the CONFIG_M25P80 symbol, which is now
    > >> > > dependent on the MTD_SPI_NOR symbol. Add CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR to the
    > >> > > relevant defconfigs.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > At the same time, drop the now-nonexistent CONFIG_MTD_CHAR symbol.
    > >> >
    > >> > I hadn't realized that the problem this patch solves was already present
    > >> > in the code, so this patch is simply catching up the defconfigs rather
    > >> > than part of a series which changed the code to cause the problem.
    > >>
    > >> Yes, this is "catching up the defconfigs." The SPI_NOR framework is new,
    > >> and I didn't want to generate defconfig noise until a few things
    > >> stabilized (particularly, its Kconfig symbol name).
    > >>
    > >> > So, this needs to be applied ASAP.
    > >> >
    > >> > I think this should be split it up so that each defconfig can go through
    > >> > the tree that owns it to avoid conflicts. If you repost split up, I can
    > >> > apply the tegra_defconfig change to the Tegra tree.
    > >>
    > >> OK, I'll try to split it up. Is ARM unique in tracking defconfigs in
    > >> separate trees? I assume MIPS, PowerPC, and Blackfin won't require the
    > >> same splitting? I'd like to avoid 31 patches when <20 could suffice.
    > >
    > > wrt arm-soc, typically they take all changes to multi_v7_defconfig
    > > directly since it is prone to conflicts. All the other ones are managed
    > > by the individual sub-arch maintainers.
    > >
    > >> I'll also rebase on linux-next. I think there may be a few conflicts.
    > >
    > > I can't speak for the other sub-archs, but I typically prefer that
    > > patches be based on an -rc tag, -rc1 if possible.
    >
    > This is making a trivial patch a pain to get merged.

    Sorry.

    > Cases like these are easiest that we just take the patch directly in
    > an early-merge branch (i.e. cleanup or fixes-non-critical, or a
    > generic depends branch), and if there's conflicts as topics are merged
    > in from subplatforms we can deal with it then.

    Are you referring to basing on -rc1, or the series being split up to
    the individual sub-arch maintainers?

    *slightly* confused,

    Jason.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-05-04 20:01    [W:2.504 / U:0.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site