Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Arnd, > > Quoting Arnd Bergmann (2015-12-30 01:29:02) >> It's also ok to merge the header file and binding with either the dts file >> changes or the driver and then do the other part the following release. >> >> In the past, we've worked around the issue by merging the driver through >> arm-soc, or by merging the dts changes through a driver tree, with the >> appropriate Acks in each case. Both of those approaches work of course, >> but the former always feels awkward to me as we are not using the right >> maintainer path, and the latter approach tends to cause merge conflicts, >> especially when multiple headers for different subsystems get added or >> the dts files are added at the same time. >> >> Having a shared branch for the header file is another way to do it, and >> we can do that in some cases, but I'd prefer not to make it the default. > > Well, I'm thinking that an immutable branch isn't such a bad idea given > that both you and Rob are OK with subsystems merging headers and binding > descriptions. > > A while back Stephen Boyd and I started to use topic branches for every > driver, all based on -rc1 and merging those into clk-next. This makes it > trivial for us to push a shareable branch with minimal dependencies. > > So at least for the clk tree, how do you feel about us merging driver + > header + binding description and then sharing our topic branch as-needed > with arm-soc? We could even push our topic branches by default to cut > down on coordinating over email back-and-forth. > > As an example, patch #1 from the Hi3519 series[0] includes the clk > driver, binding description and a shared header. Any objection to me > taking that patch as-is, based on -rc1, and pushing out that topic > branch as clk-hi3519 to the clk git tree with the expectation that > you'll just merge that if you need to? > > You can let me know if you've pulled it in, and then I won't rebase > without consulting with the arm-soc folks first. > > Does this workflow agreement Solve All the Problems? > > (Note that the patch I referenced is still under review so the branch > name I mentioned above doesn't exist yet. It is just an example) For what it's worth, this is a nice workflow for me as a driver developer. I have a couple of .dts patches that ended up waiting this cycle because I didn't have the shareable branches necessary.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
