Message ID | 52B5DCAB.204@samsung.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 03:23:39AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: > The following changes since commit 54b56e62d20ac0de6e8e12b7efdaf3a1b9b6541c: > > ARM: exynos_defconfig: increase CONFIG_NR_CPUS value to 8 > (2013-12-02 07:33:38 +0900) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kgene/linux-samsung.git > tags/samsung-defconfig-2 > > for you to fetch changes up to 7c7be272ae6413d1dd298e68752f5e34bc9b3eba: > > ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable S2MPS11 voltage regulator > (2013-12-21 06:27:47 +0900) Pulled into next/boards. Thanks! -Olof
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 03:23:39AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> The following changes since commit 54b56e62d20ac0de6e8e12b7efdaf3a1b9b6541c: >> >> ARM: exynos_defconfig: increase CONFIG_NR_CPUS value to 8 >> (2013-12-02 07:33:38 +0900) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kgene/linux-samsung.git >> tags/samsung-defconfig-2 >> >> for you to fetch changes up to 7c7be272ae6413d1dd298e68752f5e34bc9b3eba: >> >> ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable S2MPS11 voltage regulator >> (2013-12-21 06:27:47 +0900) > > Pulled into next/boards. Thanks! The regulator driver causes build breaks. Really, nobody checks these things before sending patches or merge requests? Having exynos_defconfig broken in arm-soc isn't an alternative. So I dropped this branch again. If the regulator driver gets fixed in -rc then we can probably merge it before the merge window, otherwise we'll have to merge the defconfig change after the regulator fix goes in for the 3.14 merge window. -Olof
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 03:23:39AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> The following changes since commit 54b56e62d20ac0de6e8e12b7efdaf3a1b9b6541c: >>> >>> ARM: exynos_defconfig: increase CONFIG_NR_CPUS value to 8 >>> (2013-12-02 07:33:38 +0900) >>> >>> are available in the git repository at: >>> >> >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kgene/linux-samsung.git >>> tags/samsung-defconfig-2 >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to 7c7be272ae6413d1dd298e68752f5e34bc9b3eba: >>> >>> ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable S2MPS11 voltage regulator >>> (2013-12-21 06:27:47 +0900) >> >> Pulled into next/boards. Thanks! > > The regulator driver causes build breaks. Really, nobody checks these > things before sending patches or merge requests? > > Having exynos_defconfig broken in arm-soc isn't an alternative. So I > dropped this branch again. If the regulator driver gets fixed in -rc > then we can probably merge it before the merge window, otherwise we'll > have to merge the defconfig change after the regulator fix goes in for > the 3.14 merge window. Ah, I guess the fix went in after -rc4, which is the latest -rc that we have in for-next today. I'll bring for-next forward and merge this in. Still, it's odd that you were able to test your branch before sending it in. -Olof
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 07:48:26PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > The regulator driver causes build breaks. Really, nobody checks these > > things before sending patches or merge requests? > > Having exynos_defconfig broken in arm-soc isn't an alternative. So I > > dropped this branch again. If the regulator driver gets fixed in -rc > > then we can probably merge it before the merge window, otherwise we'll > > have to merge the defconfig change after the regulator fix goes in for > > the 3.14 merge window. > Ah, I guess the fix went in after -rc4, which is the latest -rc that > we have in for-next today. I'll bring for-next forward and merge this > in. > Still, it's odd that you were able to test your branch before sending it in. The build breakage was only introduced in -rc4 - a MFD/RTC change went in via Andrew's tree so it got no exposure in -next before it showed up in Linus' tree which wasn't good. The fix was in by -rc5, looking at the date on the pull request I expect that any testing against -next (as opposed to arm-soc) would've been OK and since the branch is based on -rc1 it'd have tested out by itself as well.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 07:48:26PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > >> > The regulator driver causes build breaks. Really, nobody checks these >> > things before sending patches or merge requests? > >> > Having exynos_defconfig broken in arm-soc isn't an alternative. So I >> > dropped this branch again. If the regulator driver gets fixed in -rc >> > then we can probably merge it before the merge window, otherwise we'll >> > have to merge the defconfig change after the regulator fix goes in for >> > the 3.14 merge window. > >> Ah, I guess the fix went in after -rc4, which is the latest -rc that >> we have in for-next today. I'll bring for-next forward and merge this >> in. > >> Still, it's odd that you were able to test your branch before sending it in. > > The build breakage was only introduced in -rc4 - a MFD/RTC change went > in via Andrew's tree so it got no exposure in -next before it showed up > in Linus' tree which wasn't good. The fix was in by -rc5, looking at > the date on the pull request I expect that any testing against -next (as > opposed to arm-soc) would've been OK and since the branch is based on > -rc1 it'd have tested out by itself as well. Ah, yeah, that explains it. Thanks for the clarification. -Olof
Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 07:48:26PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > > >> > The regulator driver causes build breaks. Really, nobody checks these > >> > things before sending patches or merge requests? > > > >> > Having exynos_defconfig broken in arm-soc isn't an alternative. So I > >> > dropped this branch again. If the regulator driver gets fixed in -rc > >> > then we can probably merge it before the merge window, otherwise > we'll > >> > have to merge the defconfig change after the regulator fix goes in > for > >> > the 3.14 merge window. > > > >> Ah, I guess the fix went in after -rc4, which is the latest -rc that > >> we have in for-next today. I'll bring for-next forward and merge this > >> in. > > > >> Still, it's odd that you were able to test your branch before sending > it in. > > > > The build breakage was only introduced in -rc4 - a MFD/RTC change went > > in via Andrew's tree so it got no exposure in -next before it showed up > > in Linus' tree which wasn't good. The fix was in by -rc5, looking at > > the date on the pull request I expect that any testing against -next (as > > opposed to arm-soc) would've been OK and since the branch is based on > > -rc1 it'd have tested out by itself as well. > > > Ah, yeah, that explains it. Thanks for the clarification. > Sorry for late response and Mark, thanks for your response ;-) Olof, I have not seen regarding problem in my tree before my pull-request so I didn't know but I will look at -next and arm-soc more closely. Thanks. Kukjin