On 11/02, Olof Johansson wrote:

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 10/31, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Maxime Ripard

quoted

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.

Why can't the dts changes be applied directly on top of the
branch that's in the clk tree and then sent off to arm-soc? The
git merge && git commit technique also works, but it introduces
an unnecessary merge commit into the history.

"base the DT branch on top of the clk branch" is exactly that, isn't it?

Yes. I mostly wanted to point out that you don't need to do the
git merge part when building that branch.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project