Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231127051414.3783108-1-victor.liu@nxp.com> <CACRpkdZAtxh5muhbPKvmUQGtQogs3UhGxNZqnSGWoWQNUL7=9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <k65hxlckssjd46nsrlly6vjrr5nnkrakouzw5pmxgbf6ui3mdl@5ny7j7blkwyj>
In-Reply-To: <k65hxlckssjd46nsrlly6vjrr5nnkrakouzw5pmxgbf6ui3mdl@5ny7j7blkwyj>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:13:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbKwycpjuhMfnriqMUcbmwCTb3vJzgzCF7+ARax54q7WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before
 managing device link
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>
Cc:     Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
        sfr@canb.auug.org.au, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, andrzej.hajda@intel.com,
        neil.armstrong@linaro.org, rfoss@kernel.org,
        Laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, jonas@kwiboo.se,
        jernej.skrabec@gmail.com, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com,
        tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:29=E2=80=AFPM Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> =
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:03:53PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

> > > Liu Ying (2):
> > >   driver core: Export device_is_dependent() to modules
> > >   drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device l=
ink
> >
> > I just applied patch 1 directly to the drm-misc-fixes so we don't have =
to
> > revert and then re-apply patches, because that is a bigger evil. (We ca=
n't
> > rebase these branches...)
>
> Erm, you did wait for GKH or Rafael's ACK to do that, right?

No.

It is a bigger evil to leave the tree broken than to enforce formal process=
,
and it is pretty self-evident. If any of them get annoyed about it we can
revert the patch, or both.

Yours,
Linus Walleij