Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108607-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:18:58 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v4 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: PCIe fixes
 and GICv3 ITS enable
Message-ID: <Zfqb8jPK50vlqu5Q@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20240306095651.4551-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <171081652637.198276.6219023769904423414.b4-ty@kernel.org>
 <Zfk98hYPn7kiFGkt@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <9b475e13-96b9-4bce-8041-e0d8e5a332a1@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9b475e13-96b9-4bce-8041-e0d8e5a332a1@linaro.org>

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:09:02AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 08:25, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:56:46 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>> This series addresses a few problems with the sc8280xp PCIe
> >>> implementation.

> >> Applied, thanks!
> >>
> >> [4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: add missing PCIe minimum OPP
> >>       commit: 2b621971554a94094cf489314dc1c2b65401965c
> > 
> > I noticed that you applied both of these for 6.10, but this one is a fix
> > that should go into 6.9.
> 
> Well, mixing fixes for different cycles in one patchset was always
> discouraged. In case of some subsystems you would receive clear
> response, that you must split fixes out of the patchset.
> 
> Fixes being first in the patchset would be probably accepted by the rest
> of subsystems, but putting it in the middle of the patchset is wrong.

Perhaps you should not comment before reading up on the history of this
series.

This was all intended for 6.9, but merging was stalled for a number of
reasons so here we are. The patches were also going in through different
trees, so patch 4/5 is the first Qualcomm SoC patch.

Johan