lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH V2 0/5] soc: imx: increase build coverage for imx8 soc driver
Date
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/5] soc: imx: increase build coverage for imx8 soc
> driver
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:33 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/5] soc: imx: increase build coverage for
> > > imx8 soc driver
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:44 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > V2:
> > > > Include Leonard's patch to fix build break after enable compile
> > > > test Add Leonard's R-b tag
> > > >
> > > > Rename soc-imx8.c to soc-imx8m.c which is for i.MX8M family Add
> > > > SOC_IMX8M for build gate soc-imx8m.c Increase build coverage for
> > > > i.MX SoC driver
> > >
> > > The changes all look good to me, but I'd just do it all in one
> > > combined patch, as the changes are all logically part of the same
> > > thing. You can leave Leonard's fix as a [PATCH 1/2] if you want, but the
> rest should clearly be a single change.
> >
> > There is a arm64 defconfig change, should it be also included in the single
> change?
>
> Good point, that one is probably better left separate indeed.

Since the defconfig change needs stay alone in a patch,
merge other patches into one might not be good. The patchset
I did is to make sure the soc-imx8m.c could always be built. If
I merge the others into one, without the defconfig patch set CONFIG
option to y, soc-imx8m.c will not be built. This might break git bisect
to check the soc-imx8m.c

So I prefer not to merge the others into one patch. Do you agree?

Thanks,
Peng.

>
> Arnd
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-27 14:23    [W:0.460 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site