On Friday 07 Dec 2018 at 18:47:22 (+0200), Georgi Djakov wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 12/7/18 18:27, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Hi Georgi,
> >
> > On Friday 07 Dec 2018 at 17:29:17 (+0200), Georgi Djakov wrote:
> >> Recently the cmd_db_read_aux_data() function was changed to avoid using
> >> memcpy and return a pointer instead. Update the code to the new API and
> >> fix the build failure.
> >>
> >> Fixes: ed3cafa79ea7 ("soc: qcom: cmd-db: Stop memcpy()ing in cmd_db_read_aux_data()")
> >> Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/interconnect/qcom/sdm845.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
> >
> > IIUC this file is introduced by patch 5. Should the fix be squashed
> > into patch 5 directly ? Just to keep things bisectable.
>
> The reason why i have split it as a separate change is because as a
> separate change it would be easier to review & test for the people who
> are already familiar with the rest of the series.
>
> Another minor reason is that a separate patch will also make the life a
> bit easier for some people who are back-porting this to kernels using
> the older version of the cmd_db API.
>
> The commit that changed the cmd_db API is not yet in mainline, but in
> linux-next. I am not sure what is preferred in this case?
Not sure either but I guess that will depend who gets merged first ...
If that's the cmd_db change, then you'll need to squash your fix in
patch 5. If your series goes first, then the fix needs to be applied to
the cmb_db change.
I personally don't mind either way as long as we don't break bisection :-)
Thanks,
Quentin
