Re: [GIT PULL] soc: mediatek: updates for v5.6

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:52 PM Matthias Brugger [off-list ref] wrote:

On 17/01/2020 20:22, Olof Johansson wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:18 AM Matthias Brugger [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Olof,
Hi ARnds,

Please have a look on the following patches for mediatek soc drivers for v5.6

I includes the stable branch v5.5-next/cmdq-stable which should also be merged
in the DRM tree. I'm not very familiar with providing a stable tree, although I
double-checked that in the pull request to the DRM tree the commit IDs are the
same, I thought it is worth noting.

I'm a little confused as to how the dependencies are expected to line up here.

Does your non-DRM contents rely on the DRM pieces? If so, you need
them to be based on top of that branch to make sure they are
bisectable, not merge the DRM branch in on top (since a bisect might
land on a commit before the merge).

No, it's the other way round. DRM relies on the four patches I took from Bibby
Hsieh. They are part of v5.5-next/cmdq-stable and this branch was merged into
v5.5-next/soc as well as in Ck Hu's DRM branch. My understanding is that Ck Hu
sends pull requests to the DRM branch.

Ah, ok -- in that case there's no need to bring in the DRM branch to
your contents here, they'll merge them at their end.

It doesn't do any harm (besides adding dependencies that aren't
strictly needed), but we usually avoid doing it.

quoted

But... I also don't see how there's any actual dependency here? There
are a few cleanups, the DRM branch builds without them, and the branch
when checked out right before the DRM merge in your pull request, also
builds.

The patches add some helper functions like cmdq_dev_get_client_reg on which the
DRM branch from Ck Hu depends [1].

Hope that clarifies your questions.

Yeah, ok -- merging.


-Olof

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel