Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
drivers/mfd/simple-mfd-i2c.c
between commit:
5913eb45d036 ("mfd: simple-mfd-i2c: Enable support for the silergy,sy7636a")
from the mfd tree and commit:
d0cac2434c8e ("mfd: simple-mfd-i2c: Add Delta TN48M CPLD support")
from the char-misc tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc drivers/mfd/simple-mfd-i2c.c
index f4c8fc3ee463,0d6a51ed6286..000000000000
--- a/drivers/mfd/simple-mfd-i2c.c
+++ b/drivers/mfd/simple-mfd-i2c.c
@@@ -62,19 -62,9 +62,20 @@@ static int simple_mfd_i2c_probe(struct
return ret;
}
+static const struct mfd_cell sy7636a_cells[] = {
+ { .name = "sy7636a-regulator", },
+ { .name = "sy7636a-temperature", },
+};
+
+static const struct simple_mfd_data silergy_sy7636a = {
+ .mfd_cell = sy7636a_cells,
+ .mfd_cell_size = ARRAY_SIZE(sy7636a_cells),
+};
+
static const struct of_device_id simple_mfd_i2c_of_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "kontron,sl28cpld" },
+ { .compatible = "silergy,sy7636a", .data = &silergy_sy7636a},
+ { .compatible = "delta,tn48m-cpld" },
{}
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, simple_mfd_i2c_of_match);
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
>
> I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
it.
> I'll follow-up with Greg.
Should I revert this from my tree?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
>
> Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> it.
>
> > I'll follow-up with Greg.
>
> Should I revert this from my tree?
I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
But yes, please revert it.
The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
I'll follow-up with Greg.
> drivers/mfd/simple-mfd-i2c.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5913eb45d036 ("mfd: simple-mfd-i2c: Enable support for the silergy,sy7636a")
>
> from the mfd tree and commit:
>
> d0cac2434c8e ("mfd: simple-mfd-i2c: Add Delta TN48M CPLD support")
>
> from the char-misc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> >
> > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > it.
> >
> > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> >
> > Should I revert this from my tree?
>
> I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
My fault.
> But yes, please revert it.
Will go do so now.
> The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > >
> > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > >
> > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > >
> > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> >
> > My fault.
> >
> > > But yes, please revert it.
> >
> > Will go do so now.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> >
> > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
>
> The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
>
> When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
>
> "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
>
> Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
>
> REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
>
> I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> various submission iterations.
But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a
mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
supposed to.
Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
How do you want to see this merged?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > it.
> > >
> > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > >
> > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> >
> > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
>
> My fault.
>
> > But yes, please revert it.
>
> Will go do so now.
Thank you.
> > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
>
> I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
"For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
better way to convey this information such that it survives through
various submission iterations.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > >
> > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > >
> > > My fault.
> > >
> > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > >
> > > Will go do so now.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > >
> > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> >
> > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> >
> > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> >
> > "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> >
> > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
> >
> > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> >
> > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > various submission iterations.
>
> But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a
> mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> supposed to.
>
> Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
It's not quite as easy as that.
It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
other patches in the set are ready to be merged. So how would I
indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
submitted?
This method actually works really well the majority of the time, and
has done for a number of years. However, I am always willing to
improve on my processes given the opportunity.
> How do you want to see this merged?
The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
first place?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:54:57AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > > >
> > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > > >
> > > > My fault.
> > > >
> > > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > > >
> > > > Will go do so now.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > > >
> > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> > >
> > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> > >
> > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> > >
> > > "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> > >
> > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
> > >
> > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> > >
> > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > > various submission iterations.
> >
> > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> > ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a
> > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> > supposed to.
> >
> > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
>
> It's not quite as easy as that.
>
> It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
> other patches in the set are ready to be merged. So how would I
> indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
> patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
> submitted?
But from an "outside" observer, this patch series seemed to have acks
from all maintainers, yet no one was taking it. Which is why I picked
it up (someone asked me to.) Having the subsystem maintainer ack it
implied to me that there was no problem. Odd that you later on had one :)
> > How do you want to see this merged?
>
> The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
>
> All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
> first place?
As I mentioned above, someone else asked me to as it was sitting around
for quite a while with no movement.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > How do you want to see this merged?
> >
> > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
> >
> > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> > Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
> > first place?
>
> As I mentioned above, someone else asked me to as it was sitting around
> for quite a while with no movement.
Okay, just went to investigate.
The set hasn't been merged because it is missing a DT Ack from Rob.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:49 AM Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > How do you want to see this merged?
> > >
> > > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
> > >
> > > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
> > > first place?
> >
> > As I mentioned above, someone else asked me to as it was sitting around
> > for quite a while with no movement.
>
> Okay, just went to investigate.
>
> The set hasn't been merged because it is missing a DT Ack from Rob.
Does anybody know if Rob is active?
He has not replied to any of the patch revisions in many months.
I have tried pinging/bumping on the patches but it did not help.
Regards,
Robert
>
> --
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]
> Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura Ltd.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.sartura.hr
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:54 AM Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > > > >
> > > > > My fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will go do so now.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> > > >
> > > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> > > >
> > > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> > > >
> > > > "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> > > >
> > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
> > > >
> > > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > > >
> > > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > > > various submission iterations.
> > >
> > > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> > > ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a
> > > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> > > supposed to.
> > >
> > > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> > > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
> >
> > It's not quite as easy as that.
> >
> > It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
> > other patches in the set are ready to be merged. So how would I
> > indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
> > patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
> > submitted?
> >
> > This method actually works really well the majority of the time, and
> > has done for a number of years. However, I am always willing to
> > improve on my processes given the opportunity.
> >
> > > How do you want to see this merged?
> >
> > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
> >
> > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> Hi Lee, as far as I understand you will now take this series up via
> your MFD tree?
Yes, that's correct.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:54 AM Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > > >
> > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > > >
> > > > My fault.
> > > >
> > > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > > >
> > > > Will go do so now.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > > >
> > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> > >
> > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> > >
> > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> > >
> > > "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> > >
> > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
> > >
> > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> > >
> > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > > various submission iterations.
> >
> > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> > ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a
> > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> > supposed to.
> >
> > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
>
> It's not quite as easy as that.
>
> It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
> other patches in the set are ready to be merged. So how would I
> indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
> patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
> submitted?
>
> This method actually works really well the majority of the time, and
> has done for a number of years. However, I am always willing to
> improve on my processes given the opportunity.
>
> > How do you want to see this merged?
>
> The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
>
> All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Hi Lee, as far as I understand you will now take this series up via
your MFD tree?
Regards,
Robert
>
> Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
> first place?
>
> --
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]
> Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura Ltd.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.sartura.hr
On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:54:57AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > > > >
> > > > > My fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will go do so now.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> > > >
> > > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> > > >
> > > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> > > >
> > > > "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> > > >
> > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>"
> > > >
> > > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > > >
> > > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > > > various submission iterations.
> > >
> > > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> > > ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a
> > > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> > > supposed to.
> > >
> > > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> > > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
> >
> > It's not quite as easy as that.
> >
> > It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
> > other patches in the set are ready to be merged. So how would I
> > indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
> > patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
> > submitted?
>
> But from an "outside" observer, this patch series seemed to have acks
> from all maintainers, yet no one was taking it. Which is why I picked
> it up (someone asked me to.) Having the subsystem maintainer ack it
> implied to me that there was no problem. Odd that you later on had one :)
I understand the problem and I'm not blaming you for your assumptions.
Can you recommend a better solution though?
To be fair this very seldom causes issues.
And now you know, you know. :)
> > > How do you want to see this merged?
> >
> > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
> >
> > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> > Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
> > first place?
>
> As I mentioned above, someone else asked me to as it was sitting around
> for quite a while with no movement.
Probably better for them to reply to the 0th patch in the first instance.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog