> Yep, but to be fair the patchset did not say anything about > dependencies. There is absolutely nothing in cover letter, nothing in > the patches, so I do not wonder that this mishap happened. Still, one shouldn't take DT patches (which are even the last ones in this series) until all other patches are at least in -next, or? Yes, mistakes happen, so no big deal, but i2c is not to blame IMHO. > Depends whether you rely on being CC-ed here. Existing entries do not I don't rely on CC. I rely on patches being on the i2c list. > include you, thus you are not cc-ed on maintainers. Peter Rosin is, but > it seems Peter does not apply patches. It could be intentional, but then > I understand that all pings should go to Peter? Once Peter acks, I apply. He is the maintainer. Yet, he is very busy, so I also apply when someone else I trust does a review. He is fine with that and might chime in later, if needed. This patch here did not get any review, sadly. As I said, resource problem. That being said, these patches are somewhere on my todo list if nobody else steps up (what I would prefer). But please, don't put pressure on me (or any other potential reviewer) just because DT patches ended up upstream too early.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
