Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 21:07:22 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Cc:     Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@codeaurora.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel@freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org>,
        Sharat Masetty <smasetty@codeaurora.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        saravanak@google.com, Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>,
        Jonathan <jonathan@marek.ca>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Add support for GPU DDR BW scaling
Message-ID: <20200730153722.cnpg6n6tnmvjtuso@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
References: <1594644106-22449-1-git-send-email-akhilpo@codeaurora.org>
 <CAF6AEGtAEwZbWxLb4MxaWNswvtrFbLK+N0Fez2XYr7odKZffWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200720100131.6ux4zumbwqpa42ye@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
 <CAF6AEGurrsd3nrbB=ktZjWfKTNbKwPHYwTFiZdD-NOW1T7gePQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200721032442.hv7l4q6633vnmnfe@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
 <CAF6AEGuhQcRskGhrFvmCf5T3EcZ9S+3LRdZBiaDYqF34yZjd+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200722053023.vwaoj5oqh4cazzzz@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
 <20200730051045.jejrtkor3b32l2qe@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
 <CAF6AEGuzff9+Wy4EHx0aDx1gBzSEGh--yqT5rnwLHp=U6amnyA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGuzff9+Wy4EHx0aDx1gBzSEGh--yqT5rnwLHp=U6amnyA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 30-07-20, 08:27, Rob Clark wrote:
> Hmm, I've already sent my pull request to Dave, dropping the patch
> would require force-push and sending a new PR.  Which I can do if Dave
> prefers.  OTOH I guess it isn't the end of the world if the patch is
> merged via two different trees.

I don't think a patch can go via two trees, as that would have two sha
keys for the same code.

Though it is fine for a patch to go via two different trees if we make
sure the same sha key is used for both.

Will it be possible for you to provide a branch/tag of your branch
that I can base stuff of ?

-- 
viresh