Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:06 AM Aidan MacDonald > <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:43:22 +0100 >> > Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >> > Lee has recently expressed that he keen to take as much of these sorts >> > of series as possible via the various subsystem trees. >> > >> > As such, it is useful to call out in the cover letter of such a series >> > if this can be done. For example, patch 9 (last IIO one) can't be >> > applied without defines in patch 6 (I think). Thus I'm assuming Lee >> > will do an immutable branch with at least those patches on it. >> > >> > Perhaps worth expressing if that is also the case for the power >> > and regulator subsystem patches? > >> Yep, the IIO, regulator, and power subsystem patches all depend on >> the MFD patch. > > There are two types of dependencies: compile and functional. > >> Specifically, patches 6, 9, and 10 depend on patch 5. >> I can't get rid of this dependency because the variant ID (AXP192_ID) >> has to be defined centrally in the MFD patch. > > It's not clear which one you are talking about. If it's functional, > then each driver can be taken separately via each concerned subsystem. Johnathan was talking about compile dependencies -- the defines he's mentioning -- so what I mean is compile dependencies. Patches 6/9/10 do not compile unless they are applied after patch 5, because of a new enumerator AXP192_ID defined in patch 5. Regards, Aidan
