On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 03:52:24 +0000 Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 14:47, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 15:33:39 +0100 > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:14:47 +0800 > > > Billy Tsai <billy_tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Keep the model data pointer to driver data for reducing the usage of > > > > of_device_get_match_data(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Billy Tsai <billy_tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > This one starts to be impacted by the fix (as its in the context). > > > Rather than making a mess of things for linux-next etc I'll hold > > > off on these until that fix is upstream in a few weeks. > > > > > > If I seem to have lost it (it's been known to happen :( ) then > > > feel free to poke me! > > > > Having taken another look at the rest of the series (and Philipp's review) > > please do a v6 starting from this patch. > > I'd recommend against the practice of half applying a series. I have > just spent a good chunk of time looking at v6, and wondering why it > won't apply to any tags in Linus tree nor to next. Hi Joel, In this particular case it may been unwise, but in general it allows me to handle a higher volume of patches than would otherwise be possible. There are of course other approaches, but this one works well for me. I did express to what tree and branch these were being applied + exposed for build tests. > > (It was made worse by the branch you applied them to not being part of > linux-next.) It will be shortly. That was just unfortunate timing because of the end of the merge window and a some issues that 0-day found in other patches in the tree that needed to be fixed up before making a mess in next. Jonathan > > Cheers, > > Joel
