Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Apple M1 (Pro/Max) NVMe driver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, at 16:24, hch@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:39:49PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The usual trick is to have a branch with the shared patches and have
>> that pulled into every other tree that needs these, but make sure you never
>> rebase. In this case, you could have something like
>> 
>> a) rtkit driver in a shared branch (private only)
>> b) thunderbolt driver based on branch a), merged through
>>      thunderbolt/usb/pci tree (I don't know who is responsible here)
>> c) sart driver based on branch a), merged through soc tree
>> d) nvme driver based on branch c), merged through nvme tree
>> 
>> since the commit hashes are all identical, each patch only shows up in
>> the git tree once, but you get a somewhat funny history.
>
> Given that the nvme driver is just addition of new code I'm perfectly
> fine with sending it through whatever tree is most convenient.

So If I understand all this correctly either
	1) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart to Arnd/soc@ followed by
	   a pull request with the same commits + the nvme driver to
	   Christoph/nvme to make sure the commit hashes in both trees
	   are the same. 
or
	2) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart+nvme to soc@ and we
	   take the entire driver through there with Christoph's ack
	   if Arnd is fine with carrying it as well.

In either case SMC (or thunderbolt if I finish in time) can also be based
on the same rtkit commit and could go into 5.19 as well.
I don't have any preference here (not that my opinion matters much
for this decision anyway :-))


Sven



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux