Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Adding DT binding for zombie

From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: 楊宗翰 <ecs.taipeikernel@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Bob Moragues" <moragues@chromium.org>, Harvey <hunge@google.com>,
	"Stephen Boyd" <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	"Andy Gross" <agross@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Andersson" <andersson@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Abner.Yen@ecs.com.tw, Gavin.Lee@ecs.com.tw, Vicy.Lee@ecs.com.tw,
	Jason.Huang@ecs.com.tw, Darren.Chen@ecs.com.tw
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Adding DT binding for zombie
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:07:48 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y4Tq5DFoc0kWIjTb@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=X4GzCnmgnAQMzCNpCxzxkZXWONt4gNVCHniRYE_uFVyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 08:20:36AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 7:07 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > My checkout steps as below:
> > > $ git remote add linux_qcomÂ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/
> > > qcom/linux.git
> > > $ git fetch --no-tags linux_qcom
> > > $ git checkout -b <MyLocalBranchName> linux_qcom/for-next
> > >
> > > Is myÂ code base branch still worng?Â  Am IÂ missing something?Â
> >
> > My understanding is that it is best to base you changes on a branch like
> > 'arm64-for-6.2' as the 'for-next' branch is re-created every time changes
> > land in one of the '${area}-for-${version}' branches.
> >
> > No big issue in this case, just use the corresponding '${area}-for-${version}'
> > branch for future patches/versions :)
> 
> FWIW, I usually just use Bjron's for-next branch for stuff like this.
> While the merge commits in the the Qualcomm "for-next" branch are
> re-created every time, because of the way "git" works the git hashes
> of the actual patches are the same as the git hashes of the patches in
> the separate branches. All the patches in "for-next" should be ones
> that are fine to base your patches on.

I had minor concerns that occasionally tools might get confused it they
try to find the parent tree of a patch based on the unstable hash of
the merge commit in "for-next". Not sure if it is much of an issue in
practice.