On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:48:28PM +0900, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:46:24AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

quoted

Hi Olof,

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Olof Johansson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 09:13:08PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:55:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Friday 23 October 2015 22:41:04 Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Friday 23 October 2015 20:07:11 Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

Allwinner DT changes for 4.4, round 3

A bunch of new boards, but mostly enable the support for the Audio Codec
on the older SoCs (A10, A10s, A13, A20, R8) and enable it on various
boards.

Pulled into next/dt, thanks!

And dropped again:

In file included from /git/arm-soc/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10-a1000.dts:46:0:
/git/arm-soc/arch/arm/boot/dts/sun4i-a10.dtsi:48:46: fatal error: dt-bindings/clock/sun4i-a10-pll2.h: No such file or directory

Please make sure branches you send actually work by themselves.

Damn, you're right... Sorry about that...

You need to pull the tag sunxi-clk-for-4.4 that has been merged in the
clk tree in 38ce30e29dc.

Mike, Stephen, will that tag be stable?

I don't see that tag in your tree, Maxime? I also don't see 38ce30e29dc in
the clk tree on kernel.org.

I'm a little confused right now...

The tag is "sunxi-clocks-for-4.4":
    https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mripard/linux.git/tag/?h=sunxi-clocks-for-4.4

The merge commit in the clk tree is 938ce30e29dc:
    https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux.git/commit/?h=clk-next&id=938ce30e29dc

Thanks, so both the tag and the hash were missing a few characters. :-)

Gaah, sorry...

quoted

I've merged this in now. Note that this has resulted in a tree that won't
misect cleanly, since having the clk contents merged instead of used as a base
for the dt branch means that you could end up in a bisect state that has the DT
branch but not the clk branch.

Even if it has been merged before the DT patches have been applied?
That's not really what I'd expect from bisect :/

Yeah, due to the way bisect works, the only way to guarantee
bisectability is if you base the DT branch on top of the clk branch
when you build it. Otherwise the bisect can come down the path of only
having the DT contents not the clk contents.

quoted

These are some of the reasons why I'm not overly excited about these
header file dependencies. :(

Yeah, I see why now. Your suggestion of using the raw values first and
then switch to using the headers make sense I guess, we'll try to
stick to that in the future.

See how it works for you. If it's awkward to do that we can try
something else. I'd love to see some of these dependencies go away
though.


-Olof