Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-360-g7dda896-fmstable-20191004v2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <2de90789-c374-4821-89f9-5d5f01e7d2d6@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkda5cWaA7R3XzyiERCCgwUrjnXd+wCBeKvt-wtjex7wNDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20191008044153.12734-1-andrew@aj.id.au>
 <CACRpkda5cWaA7R3XzyiERCCgwUrjnXd+wCBeKvt-wtjex7wNDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:11:48 +1030
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@aj.id.au>
To:     "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "Joel Stanley" <joel@jms.id.au>,
        linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Johnny Huang" <johnny_huang@aspeedtech.com>,
        "Ryan Chen" <ryanchen.aspeed@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] pinctrl: Fixes for AST2600 support
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, at 21:49, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 6:41 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > This series resolves several issues found in testing by Johnny Huang from
> > ASPEED, who also contributed the patches to fix them. We'll have more patches
> > from him in the near future (which I'm pretty happy about).
> >
> > The major issue resolved is the way I grouped the eMMC pins. What I had was
> > ugly and I want to get rid of it before the binding is solidified with the 5.4
> > release.
> 
> Should some of these go in with fixes? All of them? Or just some?
> I applied them to devel right now (for v5.5).

I was hoping to get them into the 5.4 fixes branch: I consider them all fixes - the rework of the eMMC pin groups and functions is a fix for the binding. The rest are fixes for the driver itself. My preference is that they get into a release sooner rather than later.

It's there something that makes you think they shouldn't be merged as fixes for 5.4?

> 
> > The remaining fixes are minor issues that stem from lack of documentation or
> > understanding on my part, and at least one brain-fart.
> 
> Do they need to go in to v5.4 or not?
> 
> I need a shortlist of anything that should go into v5.4 if anything.

IMO all of them should go into 5.4, as above. It's there something I can do in the future to communicate this better? Explicit shortlist in the cover letter? Fixes tags on the relevant patches? Keen to make things easier/more obvious if I can.

Cheers,

Andrew