On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [adding ksummit-discuss] > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> - We've started telling people to avoid cross-tree shared branches if all >>> they're doing is picking up one or two DT-used constants from a >>> shared include file, and instead to use the numeric values on first >>> submission. Follow-up moving over to symbolic names are sent in right >>> after -rc1, i.e. here. It's only a few minor patches of this type. >> >> OK it seems like a reasonable process. >> >> It's not like I can think about anything better. >> >> I was more opting for doing things this way: >> >> - Create bindings and <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> merge it into the >> foo subsystem. >> >> - Merge driver into drivers/foo/bar.c that use <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> >> >> - Submit DTS patch to ARM SoC (or whetever) using only numerical >> values. >> >> - After the merge window, follow up with a patch replacing the >> numerical constants with #defines from <dt-bindings/foo/bar.h> > > You're describing exactly what we've been pushing people towards. > > If it's just a few simple references it's not significantly more > awkward, and decouples merges and removes need for stable branches. > Essentially we've become slightly more lax in what we're willing to > consider _right after_ -rc1 to include these tweaks (and often patches > to turn on new drivers in defconfigs). > > If the amount of contents grows too large we might need to tweak > things further, maybe with something pre-rc1 but that's more awkward. > >> An alternative would obviously be to wait for the next merge window >> after merging the driver patch but I guess people are too impatient >> to do that (including me). > > Yeah, asking people to spread out across releases would remove > dependencies a lot, but it would also slow down progress and frustrate > a lot of contributors so we don't do that. > >> We discussed cross-tree dependencies a bit on ksummit-discuss >> but this solution was not mentioned back then. > > I thought it was, but I wasn't fully engaged in the discussion. We've > also only started this over the last release or two so it's early to > tell just how well it'll work in reality. Cc:ing the list. Yeah, this sounds like a good step towards improving what I've complained about, while still keeping topic/shared stable branch proliferation under control. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
