* Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> [120312 16:30]: > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> > The branch itself is essentially stable but I'm not enthused about the > >> > idea of merging the whole thing via the OMAP tree. > > > >> Right, I wasn't suggesting we merge it via OMAP tree. I was just > >> looking for a stable point we could use as s dependency when merging > >> everything together for the arm-soc tree. > > > > Well, if you don't base the OMAP changes that depend on it off the > > regulator changes then you'll break bisection as you'll have a bunch of > > commits which won't have all their dependencies present on a branch > > (since they're not present in the branch point and aren't otherwise > > merged in), if bisect goes down that branch it'll be miserable. That > > seems bad and while I've not run into it with OMAP in particular it's > > rather painful when it does happen. > > > > It's much better if the branch has the required changes merged into it > > prior to their being used. > > OK. > > Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies > merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree. Pulled in this into pm-regulator branch finally. Tony -- 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
