[PATCHv4 0/9] *** ARM: Update arch-vt8500 to Devicetree ***

[Tony Prisk]

On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 13:22 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 August 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > >On Thursday 23 August 2012, Tony Prisk wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Without the clock patch (9/9), the mach-vt8500 patch (6/9) won't compile
> > due to unresolved symbols.
> > 
> > In arch/arm/mach-vt8500/vt8500.c - you will get an unresolved symbol
> > for 'vtwm_clk_init'
> > 
> > Not sure if this matters, thought I should point it out.
> > Does it need to compile cleanly in your tree (which is what I would assume),
> > or just once its all combined in -next?
> > Does it matter that the usb patches are already in -next?
> > 
> > I don't really understand the requirements around submitting to individual
> > trees and which (if any) of these points are actually issues.
> 
> The rule is that each changeset should be free of regressions compared
> to the version before. So if you have a set of 7 patches in one branch
> that you want me to pick up, the result after applying those 7 patches
> should work, and each previous step should also work. You cannot for
> instance add a call to a function in one patch and then provide that
> function in the following patch.
> 
> There are multiple ways to achieve this:
> 
> * when you have dependencies, get everything merged through one
> maintainer tree, and get Acks for each patch that belongs to another
> maintainer.
> 
> * submit a branch with the patches that other stuff depends on to
> both the subsystem maintainer who is responsible for it and to
> the subsystem maintainer who gets the other patches that are built
> on top of this branch. If you do this, you have to make sure that
> the first branch never gets rebased and that the second branch is
> not sent before the first one is upstream.
> 
> * change the code so that no dependencies exist, e.g. by introducing
> a dummy implementation in one patch and the proper one in another.
> This can generate merge conflicts, but that's usually ok.
> 
> 	Arnd
> 

I was about to say that if Mike has any issues with the driver that I
can fix the patch conflict at the same time, but I just realised that
its more work than I originally thought :)

I was going to move the arch-vt8500 part of the clocks patch back into
the clocks patch - but that will just move the issue from arm-soc to
clocks because Mike's branch won't have the arch-vt8500 patch so the
patch will fail.

If Mike is OK with it once the clocks driver is reviewed, it will be a
lot easier for the whole lot to go in via arm-soc, otherwise I can try
figuring out how to get the arch-vt8500 patch to Mike first, and then
the clocks patch.


Regards
Tony Prisk