On Friday 07 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote: > Just running this by you, as there is method in the madness. > > Linus wanted to keep changes to the Device Tree and changes > in platform code separate, which is my reason for submitting > all of my changes to date that way. > > What I do (not sure if I've achieved that here yet, I'll need > to take another look) is; make changes to the driver which > enable it for Device Tree use. Then apply the DT node and remove > platform registration in two subsequent patches respectively. > Then when we come to bisect and land in between them we still > have a perfectly working driver, only the second probe fails > which the only side-effect is some warnings in the boot log.
I'm sorry that you are getting conflicting directions from Linus and me. We can use the approach you suggest here this time, but I'd prefer if we can all agree on how to do this in the future. Linus: What is the reason you want to see the commits split up like this? We normally try to split up changes into small atomic improvements, but splitting them even further seems counterproductive, and loses the context information in the changeset description. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/