RE: [PATCH V2 0/5] soc: imx: increase build coverage for imx8 soc driver

[Peng Fan]

> 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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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