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
