On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:16:16AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/03/2024 09:40, Johan Hovold wrote: > > At the time there was still hope that there may be an rc8, and the patch > > in question had been used by a large number of X13s users for several > > weeks, which is a lot more testing than the average Qualcomm patch > > receives, whether it's in linux-next or not. > > OK, it does solve some parts of our discussion but does not solve my > earlier comment: Fixes should be separate series. Certain folks have > quite strict requirement on this. Try sending a fix with non-fix > (depending on fix somehow like here) to Mark Brown. He has even template > for such case... That's not a general rule at all. > > And patch 5 depends on the earlier patches in the series so it belongs > > in the series, which was also initially posted long before the merge > > window. > > The dependency is might not be good enough reason to combine fixes and > non-fixes into one series. Dependency should be explained (in 5th > patch), but it's maintainer's judgement and job to handle this. FFS, I'm posting a series adding a new feature, which depends on first addressing a few related bugs. I post everything together so that it can be evaluated and tested together. That's perfectly fine, and not that different from how we post driver and dts changes in one series to facilitate review. Some maintainers don't like that either, then we deal with that. Johan
