> -----Original Message----- > From: Cousson, Benoit > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:35 PM > To: Kanigeri, Hari > Cc: Shilimkar, Santosh; Linux Omap; Tony Lindgren; Que, Simon > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] omap:hwspinlock support-omap4 > > Hi Santosh, > > On 7/20/2010 4:12 PM, Kanigeri, Hari wrote: > > Santosh, > > > > > >>> > >>> Hari Kanigeri (1): > >>> omap:hwspinlocks-ensure the order of registration > >>> > >>> Simon Que (4): > >>> omap:hwmod-hwspinlock-enable > >>> omap:hwspinlock-define HWSPINLOCK base address > >> I think you should fold patch 1/5 , 2/5 into patch 3/5. > >> At least patch 2/5 o.w git-bisect will break > > > > Can you please explain why this would break ? > > Yep, I'm confused as well... > > In fact 3 & 4 should be merged. In patch 3 we introduce 2 news files > that will not be compiled until the next patch. We'd better modify the > makefile in the same patch. For the build point of view, the patch 3 > will be a noop. > I see your point now. So bisect should be ok but I agree with Benoit suggestion. Additionally, the base address patch can be avoided because this information can be retrieved from platform data. res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); "res->start" is base address Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
