Hi Ayush,
On 19/03/24 12:17, Ayush Singh wrote:
On 3/19/24 11:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 17/03/2024 20:37, Ayush Singh wrote:
DONOTMERGE
this patch depends on Patch 1, 2, 3
So none of your work should be reviewed? I don't understand this, but in
such case I am not going to review it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
I am a bit lost here. It was mentioned in the patch v3 that I should
specify the interdependence of patches in v3. And now you are saying I
should not?
It was mentioned in v3 that patches that are independent should be sent
separately to the particular subsytem list and the dependencies should
be mentioned in this series, still in this series you have combined SPI
patches/platform DT changes along with the mikroBUS driver patches which
creates confusion.
This is what I mentioned as a response to your v3 series regarding
adding the patches
"The reasoning behind this is that these patches go in to separate
maintainer trees and without the bindings merged first the device tree
changes cannot be validated, thus it is a usual practice to get the
bindings and driver merged first and the device tree changes to go in
the next cycle. Another alternative is you can point to your fork with
all the changes together."
My suggestion was to get your series with the bindings and the base
driver support accepted/ready first and the send the platform specific
DT changes later. The rationale behind pointing to your fork with all
changes is to have all the changes (w1 EEPROM, instantiating remote
mikrobus ports over greybus .etc) together and ensure there are no
conflicts with the base series.
It looks like you have put DONOTMERGE on random patches (why is patch 3
and 4 marked as do not merge?)
Thanks and Regards,
Vaishnav
Here is the rationale for the dependence:
1. Any changes to the property names in dt-bindings patch 1 will need an
appropriate change here.
2. This patch will fail to build without patch 2.
3. This patch will fail to build without patch 3.
Ayush Singh
