On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 12:49:13AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions with > > fsl,pins property > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 08:36:27AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > Hi Linus, Sudeep, Cristian, > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions > > > > with fsl,pins property > > > > > > Sorry if this is an early ping to you. Just wanna this not blocking > > > i.MX95 upstream support. > > > > > > > I would say yes as this was posted bang in the middle of the merge window. > > So it is possible for people to miss this if they are busy otherwise. > > > > I wouldn't have responded in general or if someone is new to the Linux kernel > > development. But you are no new to kernel development. > > > > In general I also have a suggestion for you. Avoid churning the dependent > > patch series if the base set of patches are not yet reviewed or agreed upon. > > I was super confused with the amount of different concurrent but dependent > > patch series you had for this whole i.MX SCMI pinmux support. I had ignored > > and not responded in the past but thought it would be good to respond in > > this thread. > > Thanks for your suggestion. I tried to do different implementations that > could make all of us agree, so it was indeed many versions with different > implementations. Sorry. I will improve. > Thanks and sorry again if it is harsh but it was indeed confusing. > BTW: would you please also give an ACK for patch 3, because patch 3 uses > module_scmi_driver? Done. -- Regards, Sudeep
