Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108625-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:40:40 +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: <ZfqhCKoEL4XGRs7T@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>
 <Zfqb8jPK50vlqu5Q@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <baf9c1bd-84ef-4ecb-b229-51a83fe82c3f@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <baf9c1bd-84ef-4ecb-b229-51a83fe82c3f@linaro.org>

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:24:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 09:18, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Again, well, you sent it at few days before merge window, so how do you
> imagine this being applied for v6.9 and still fulfilling "few linux-next
> cycles before merge window" requirement? Especially that arm-soc cut off
> is much earlier :/. I talk about patch 5, of course, because that is not
> a fix (at least not marked as one). Don't expect in general a arms-co
> patch to be applied four days before merge window, thus the actual fix -
> patch #4 - should be split.

At the time there was still hope that there may be an rc8, and the patch
in question had been used by a large number of X13s users for several
weeks, which is a lot more testing than the average Qualcomm patch
receives, whether it's in linux-next or not.

And patch 5 depends on the earlier patches in the series so it belongs
in the series, which was also initially posted long before the merge
window.

I'm sure Bjorn A can handle this in general, even if he failed to notice
the CC stable tag or had other reasons for applying the fix for 6.10
instead of 6.9.

Johan