Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220426201539.12829-1-sven@svenpeter.dev> <CAK8P3a1yJkegvgvzHemBd_dowvpyDmxtUnrpiHob8+hiNeO4sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0f6ea2c3-586d-4f5a-9cee-688cd73b96b3@www.fastmail.com> <CAK8P3a3pPxpoOZ0hm9htBRyYc7L38F6egi-0=41tMtcLRGJ_jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220428142412.GA19708@lst.de> <be7e0eb1-c423-455f-bd89-050d52996340@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <be7e0eb1-c423-455f-bd89-050d52996340@www.fastmail.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 22:33:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1CO8_Pa=Hk3hcdNfT_eD3PQK2aWDFB9bwk6TCNbGmtEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Apple M1 (Pro/Max) NVMe driver
To:     Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>
Cc:     "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, "axboe@fb.com" <axboe@fb.com>,
        "sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:37 PM Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, at 16:24, hch@lst.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:39:49PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> The usual trick is to have a branch with the shared patches and have
> >> that pulled into every other tree that needs these, but make sure you never
> >> rebase. In this case, you could have something like
> >>
> >> a) rtkit driver in a shared branch (private only)
> >> b) thunderbolt driver based on branch a), merged through
> >>      thunderbolt/usb/pci tree (I don't know who is responsible here)
> >> c) sart driver based on branch a), merged through soc tree
> >> d) nvme driver based on branch c), merged through nvme tree
> >>
> >> since the commit hashes are all identical, each patch only shows up in
> >> the git tree once, but you get a somewhat funny history.
> >
> > Given that the nvme driver is just addition of new code I'm perfectly
> > fine with sending it through whatever tree is most convenient.
>
> So If I understand all this correctly either
>         1) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart to Arnd/soc@ followed by
>            a pull request with the same commits + the nvme driver to
>            Christoph/nvme to make sure the commit hashes in both trees
>            are the same.
> or
>         2) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart+nvme to soc@ and we
>            take the entire driver through there with Christoph's ack
>            if Arnd is fine with carrying it as well.
>
> In either case SMC (or thunderbolt if I finish in time) can also be based
> on the same rtkit commit and could go into 5.19 as well.
> I don't have any preference here (not that my opinion matters much
> for this decision anyway :-))

Correct, those are both ok.

        Arnd