Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-144644-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <f67ca72f-c0ae-4f2f-a435-b00266914053@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:13:39 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] clk: samsung: introduce nMUX to reparent MUX
 clocks
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
 peter.griffin@linaro.org
Cc: alim.akhtar@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 andre.draszik@linaro.org, willmcvicker@google.com, kernel-team@android.com,
 s.nawrocki@samsung.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, mturquette@baylibre.com,
 sboyd@kernel.org, semen.protsenko@linaro.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
 jaewon02.kim@samsung.com
References: <20240328123440.1387823-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
 <ab700927-d7b6-44c6-bbe0-8c52e4a0f907@linaro.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <ab700927-d7b6-44c6-bbe0-8c52e4a0f907@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 4/13/24 09:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> v3:
>> - update first patch:
>>   - remove __nMUX() as it duplicated __MUX() with an exception on flags.
>>   - update commit message
>>   - update comment and say that nMUX() shall be used where MUX reparenting
>>     on clock rate chage is allowed
>> - collect R-b, A-b tags
>>
> 
> Sorry for late response, somehow this end up deep in inbox. You

no worries!

> reference some non existing commits, so I think you do not work on
> mainline trees.

Ah, the horror, you're right, I messed up the fixes reference in commit
2. It's because I started working on this before that patch got
integrated. Would be good to extend checkpatch to catch such situations.

> 
> Also Fixes must come before other patches, so probably first patch
> should be squashed with second. Otherwise second patch is not a complete
> fix.

I don't mind squashing them. I noticed a tag that might help in this
situations: "Depends-on:". But I guess we can't use that in the same
patch set as when the maintainer applies the dependency and adds its
S-o-b tag, it will modify the sha1 of the commit. Will squash them.

Cheers,
ta