On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:40:55PM +0800, ChiYuan Huang wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年12月14日 週一 下午5:59寫道： > > > > > > Hi CY > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 12:33:43AM +0800, cy_huang wrote: > > > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Adds DT binding document for Richtek RT4831 backlight. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch got keyword filtered and brought to my attention > > > but the rest of the series did not. > > > > > > If it was a backlight patch series you need to send it To: the > > > all the backlight maintainers. > > > > > Yes, I'm waiting for mfd reviewing. > > Due to mfd patch, I need to add backlight dt-binding patch prior to > > backlight source code. > > Or autobuild robot will said mfd dt-binding build fail from Rob. > > That's why I send the backlight dt-binding prior to the source code. > > > > I still have backlight/regulator source code patch after mfd reviewing. > > Do you want me to send all the patches without waiting for mfd reviewing? > > To some extent it's up to you. > > I think I would have shared all the pieces at once (although not it Lee, > as mfd maintainer, had suggested otherwise). You should not need to concern yourself with patch ordering outside of the realms of the set i.e. [PATCH 1/x], [PATCH 2/x], etc. If you just send the whole patch set and you do not specify otherwise, it will be applied, in order, as a set. Sending subsystem patches without the correct maintainers as recipients is bad form. Many of us have filters on, so this tactic will seldom work in any case. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
