Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:55:56 +0900 | From | "Magnus Damm" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] soc-camera: fix compile breakage on SH |
| |
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Magnus Damm wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski >> <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: >> > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Magnus Damm wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks for working on fixing the breakage. I'd prefer to wait a bit >> >> since there are quite a few pinmux patches queued up that may break if >> >> we merge a fix right now. I can fix it up later on. >> > >> > no, I would not leave the kernel in a non-compilable state even if just >> > for one board. Please, test a new version of the patch below. And yes, You >> > will have to rebase your patches, sorry. Another thing, could you also, >> > please, add a license / copyright header to >> > include/media/soc_camera_platform.h? >> >> I'm not asking you to keep the board broken forever. It's just a >> question of in which order the trees are getting merged. Again, I'd >> rather see that this fix is put _on_top_ of the patches that are >> already queued up in the SuperH tree. Merging it before doesn't help >> anything in my opinion - especially since the change should go though >> the SuperH tree anyway. > > I think, compilation-breakage fixes should have higher priority than > further enhancements. Think about bisection. If you now first commit > several more patches, you make the interval where the tree is not > compilable longer, and thus the probabiliy that someone hits it in their > git.bisect higher. That's why I think any compilation breakage should be > fixed ASAP. And which changes do you mean specifically? This one: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-sh&m=122346619318532&w=2 > > Yes, indeed they conflict, but it is trivial to fix. So, I would prefer to > close the compile-breakage window ASAP, and then trivially update that one > your patch. Let's see what others say. And as for through which tree it > should go, if you insist the sh-part going through the sh-tree, then it > has to be split into two parts - video and sh. Thus extending the > breakage-window by one commit...
Yeah, that one plus a patch for the smc91x platform data and another one for mmc (which needs updating anyway). So maybe it's not such a big deal. And I see your point with closing the window ASAP to do damage control. Otoh I wonder how big difference it will be extending the breakage window with one commit - there must be zillions of commits in after the breakage already.
Paul, any strong feelings regarding merging things though the SuperH tree?
>> Feel free to add any header you like. =) > > Thanks, but no thanks:-) I cannot add your copyright, at least not without > your explicit agreement (I think). So, I'd prefer you submit a patch for > that.
I wonder if it's a large enough bit sequence to actually copyright. =) But sure, I'll do that.
Is this .29 material, or will there be a second v4l round with trivial driver changes for .28?
I've already posted some vivi patches and two simple patches for the sh_mobile_ceu driver - sorry about the timing - and i have one more sh_mobile_ceu patch outstanding. Also, I think one of my coworkers may post a soc_camera driver for ov772x chips soon too.
Is there any chance that can get included in .28?
Thank you!
/ magnus
| |