On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 01:52:44AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:36:15AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:25 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > This series reverts the attempts to fix the bug that went > > > > into v6.7-rc1 in commit 199cf07ebd2b > > > > "drm/bridge: panel: Add a device link between drm device and panel device" > > > > and then it reverts that patch as well. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Linus Walleij (3): > > > > Revert "driver core: Export device_is_dependent() to modules" > > > > Revert "drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device link" > > > > Revert "drm/bridge: panel: Add a device link between drm device and panel device" > > > > > > To preserve bisectability, you should revert in the opposite order. > > > > You mean apply patch 2, then 1, then 3 so the kernel builds after each > > revert? > > > > Yeah that's a good idea, I don't know if I should apply these though, better > > someone else do it since I screwed up too much. > > > > Another option is to just squash the reverts into one, that bisects too :/ > > I thought the commits have been applied to drm-misc in a bisectable > order in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be the case :-( > Reverting "driver core: Export device_is_dependent() to modules" last > seems to be the best option in this case. I wouldn't squash them. Agreed, don't squash, just revert in the opposite order they were applied in originally, that way the tree can always build. thanks, greg k-h
