On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Merging
> =======
> I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because:
> 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so
> they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though).
> It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean
> `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS.
> 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree
> on the existing DTS.
> 3. No drivers are affected by this change.
> 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect
> follow up patchsets.
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC
commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f
Best regards,
--
Thierry Reding <[email protected]>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Merging
> > =======
> > I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so
> > they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though).
> > It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean
> > `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS.
> > 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree
> > on the existing DTS.
> > 3. No drivers are affected by this change.
> > 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect
> > follow up patchsets.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> [12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC
> commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f
You didn't honor (or even comment) Krzysztof's proposal to take the
whole patchset via his tree (marked above). Was there some off-list
agreement?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On 28/11/2023 21:58, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Merging
>>> =======
>>> I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>> 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so
>>> they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though).
>>> It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean
>>> `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS.
>>> 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree
>>> on the existing DTS.
>>> 3. No drivers are affected by this change.
>>> 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect
>>> follow up patchsets.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC
>> commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f
>
> You didn't honor (or even comment) Krzysztof's proposal to take the
> whole patchset via his tree (marked above). Was there some off-list
> agreement?
>
It was also written in the PWM patch itself (under changelog ---) and
expressed with my "applied" response when I took everything. I am
sending now another set, also touching PWM.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:58:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > Merging
> > > =======
> > > I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > > 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so
> > > they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though).
> > > It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean
> > > `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS.
> > > 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree
> > > on the existing DTS.
> > > 3. No drivers are affected by this change.
> > > 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect
> > > follow up patchsets.
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > [12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC
> > commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f
>
> You didn't honor (or even comment) Krzysztof's proposal to take the
> whole patchset via his tree (marked above). Was there some off-list
> agreement?
I had read all that and then looking at patchwork saw that you had
marked all other patches in the series as "handled-elsewhere" and only
this one was left as "new", so I assumed that, well, everything else was
handled elsewhere and I was supposed to pick this one up...
I'll drop this one.
Thierry
Hello Thierry,
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 01:36:05PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:58:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > Merging
> > > > =======
> > > > I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > > 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so
> > > > they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though).
> > > > It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean
> > > > `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS.
> > > > 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree
> > > > on the existing DTS.
> > > > 3. No drivers are affected by this change.
> > > > 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect
> > > > follow up patchsets.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > Applied, thanks!
> > >
> > > [12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC
> > > commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f
> >
> > You didn't honor (or even comment) Krzysztof's proposal to take the
> > whole patchset via his tree (marked above). Was there some off-list
> > agreement?
>
> I had read all that and then looking at patchwork saw that you had
> marked all other patches in the series as "handled-elsewhere" and only
> this one was left as "new", so I assumed that, well, everything else was
> handled elsewhere and I was supposed to pick this one up...
I didn't mark it as handled-elsewhere, but my expectation was that you
might want to send an Ack only.
For today's series by Krzysztof I acked and marked the patch as
handled-elsewhere (together with the rest of the series that isn't pwm
related). So you have to consult your inbox if you still want to send an
Ack for that one.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |