Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-83385-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:17:23 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
	H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com>,
	kernel@pengutronix.de,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: ppc4xx: Fix fallout from rename in struct
 spi_bitbang
Message-ID: <c06fe3e9-e74f-4e80-8b33-23aacdceecf6@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240210164006.208149-5-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
 <20240210164006.208149-7-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
 <y2my7hxrpnwg72ols6a5w7n6zqz2yaxtswq4zlv6xpguiyaunm@tguc7ua3ypa5>
 <76fcc5ec-0180-4f75-aaac-5ae74f2f687a@sirena.org.uk>
 <6nqpvqodqhk5vwwqgdez2lwsdlh4xrzfstkaf7o2mjz46ub2xf@zjacuzux5jdm>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WxzOEfWF7Ds8gXso"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6nqpvqodqhk5vwwqgdez2lwsdlh4xrzfstkaf7o2mjz46ub2xf@zjacuzux5jdm>


--WxzOEfWF7Ds8gXso
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:45:05PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:50:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:23:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:

> > BTW the issue here is that you sent this without comment in the middle
> > of a series of fixes the other two of which *do* apply to mainline,
> > ideally it would have just been sent separately since it needs to go
> > separately but if you *are* going to send a single series like this
> > things that are -next only should go after any fixes that are for
> > mainline.

> I expected that adding Fixes lines is enough documentation but I agree
> that in retrospect it would have been a good idea to mention the
> expected target branch for each patch. I'm willing to take half of the

The Fixes would have done the right thing if the ordering was what I
expected or if it had been sent separately - basically I wasn't
expecting to find -next material after a mainline fix in the series so
I'll not check back further in the series.=20

> blame you assigned me as in retrospect double checking the Fixes lines
> or doing a compile test of the ppc4xx driver would also have been a good
> idea for you as maintainer applying the patches. Sorry for my

I have a standard set of checks I do but as you pointed out the driver
doesn't even build with a PowerPC defconfig, let alone cross
architecture - at some point it gets to be the same situation as with
if drivers for hardware I don't have works.  The coverage in CI systems
is generally good enough for long tail configs like this, but AFAICT
even 0day didn't notice here.

--WxzOEfWF7Ds8gXso
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmXd7vIACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9BrNgf/UtB/mMUMjmUKb0A+gfwA640wE5TbrLTmp+E5DJ33wBGCyCpsMzIHehZy
QpQpYp+GowQnpxdckO1EUk5AcdbsXXJoRLGlpVW9HaqQNM4ago+EmqAaoe65kakI
ccJpxNDui2snwQqi1O+Ykdk8ujf9EuPg+HRzM5jXViRY3uj4opOQQN5aEIhQYNa2
uGk1rVvTJV5ffTU2TRHYtMU4ywQvQlLXE0THQBcRG27KNqUFM1qzgpw/8eiTZXnc
gKws6iNp5nfmsm3WIxOEeWxh8lKmjmU8ygG4OQc4fQy8DQHW80AOHzex7ViwR+Tb
2KQije22cUmwIK+ZxO01QFW3oQZ0Lw==
=TuU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WxzOEfWF7Ds8gXso--