On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 07:54:40AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:20 AM Benjamin Tissoires > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:12 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 4:41 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > .../bindings/input/goodix,gt7375p.yaml | 65 +++++ > > > > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 3 +- > > > > drivers/hid/Makefile | 2 +- > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/Kconfig | 47 +++- > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/Makefile | 6 +- > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c | 159 +++++++++++ > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c | 254 +++--------------- > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of-goodix.c | 116 ++++++++ > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of.c | 143 ++++++++++ > > > > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.h | 22 ++ > > > > include/linux/platform_data/i2c-hid.h | 41 --- > > > > 11 files changed, 596 insertions(+), 262 deletions(-) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/goodix,gt7375p.yaml > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of-goodix.c > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of.c > > > > delete mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/i2c-hid.h > > > > > > Are there any additional changes that folks would like with this > > > series? It's not crazy urgent to get it in, but it touches enough > > > lines of code that it'd be nice to get it in before other patches land > > > and it gets merge conflicts. > > > > Sorry for the delay. I was having an internal deadline last week. I > > just re-read the code, and I am quite happy with it. I also just > > tested it on the i2c-hid w/ acpi machine I have here, and it seems OK. > > > > So other than that, do we need to have approvals for patch 2/4 > > (arch/arm64/configs/defconfig)? I can easily take that in the HID > > tree, but I prefer having the approval from the maintainers first. > > Catalin, Will? > > From my past knowledge of the arm64 defconfig, I think it's a bit of a > free-for-all, sort of like updates to the "MAINTAINERS" file. Doing a > "git log" on it I see commits happen from every corner and very few of > them have Acks. I think many (but not all) of the commits to this > file go through trees that feed into the SoC tree (Arnd and Olof) > because those maintainers care about enabling drivers for boards that > they're supporting, but changes come from elsewhere too. > > Obviously an Ack wouldn't hurt, though. Since get_maintainer points > at Will and Catalin I wouldn't say no if one of them wanted to Ack > patch #2 in the series. ;-) For the avoidance of doubt: Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> on patch 2. But yes, although there are a few things I really care about in defconfig (e.g. things like page size!), generally speaking we don't need to Ack everything that changes in there. That said, might be worth checking whether arm-soc have any defconfig changes queued in -next so you don't end up with conflicts. Will
