On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:09, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:51:27AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 11:49, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > Reuse Type-C support implemented for the PMI632 PMIC (found on Qualcomm > > > > Robotics RB2 platform) and implement Type-C handling for the Qualcomm > > > > Robotics RB1 platform. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Patch 1 added, 2 did not apply to my tree :( > > > > Thank you! > > Yes, patch 2 should go through arm-soc. > > Having patch series where each one goes to a different tree makes it > really hard for maintainers to know what to do, and our tools want to > take a whole series, not individual ones. Next time perhaps split it > up? Ack, I'll keep this in mind when submitting series against usb-next. I have always been on the other side, because splitting the series makes the life of the reviewers and testers harder. With single series I can review, apply and test it as a whole item. With the feature being split, I have to collect all the driver changes and also the DT changes to be able to evaluate whether the approach is sensible or not. -- With best wishes Dmitry
