On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 07:30:50AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On April 7, 2014 7:25:20 AM PDT, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
I haven't applied anything from the patch system for the last month or more as I've been soo bogged down with the l2c and fec changes.
A good question at this point is what change introduced this regression, and why did that change go through a different tree to that which is being asked to carry the fixes?
Good point. I'll apply the fix to arm-soc this morning.
Not quite - the two changes "Add cpu_is_pj4 to distinguish PJ4 because it has some differences with V7" and "Check cpu id in pj4_cp0_init." are both clearly core code changes, so should be applied via my tree.
Hence my question about what introduced this regression.
You know... Arnd moaned at me over the weekend having changes to arch/arm/boot/dts in my tree, saying that they should go via arm-soc, but it seems that it's perfectly fine for arm-soc to take core ARM code changes on a whim.
I don't care which stops: either arm-soc stops taking changes which should come via my tree, or arm-soc maintainers accept that from time to time I will be carrying changes to arch/arm/boot/dts which may conflict with changes in arm-soc.
What is unacceptable is both complaining and also take core ARM changes.
Awesome!
I'm strongly in favor of code going in through the appropriate tree since it makes life easier for maintainers, and I am looking forward to you starting sending non-core patches over to us.
I didn't know we had a resolution to that problem, and I'm glad to see that we do. This made my morning!
Thanks,
-Olof