From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752743Ab2FSR3t (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:29:49 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:44851 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752199Ab2FSR3s (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:29:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4FE0B708.20203@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:29:44 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laxman Dewangan CC: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, rob.herring@calxeda.com, arnd@arndb.de, linus.walleij@linaro.org, lrg@ti.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] ARM: dts: db8500: add node property "regulator-compatible" regulator node References: <1340116099-17629-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <1340116099-17629-4-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <1340116099-17629-4-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/19/2012 08:28 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > Device's regulator matches their hardware counterparts with the > property "regulator-compatible" of each child regulator node in > place of the child node. > Add the property "regulator-compatible" for each regulator with > their name. In order to prevent "git bisect" failures, don't you need to squash this patch into patch 1/3, so that there is no point in git history where the code expects the regulator-compatible property to exist, yet the .dtsi file doesn't have it? Or you could do this: patch 1: add register-compatible property to db8500.dtsi patch 2: adjust the code to use register-compatible property patch 3: rename nodes in db8500.dtsi but I'm not sure there's any advantage to having multiple patches (except for patch statistics counters, but we certainly don't want to have legitimate allegations of patch padding!)