> -----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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
