Hi Ricky, Patrick, On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 22:33 -0400, Patrick Williams wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 09:24:11AM +0000, Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn wrote: > > > Would like to ask should I base on the openbmc/linux repo to create the > > remaining patches that have context dependencies and add the lore link > > of the those patches that I've sent in the cover letter? > > I believe you're trying to get the patches applied onto the upstream > tree, so no you should not base on the openbmc/linux repo. That repo is > a 6.6 branch. You need to base the commits on torvalds/linux. > In my previous email[1] I requested: > Please assess the remaining yosemite4 devicetree patches (those you > haven't received a thank-you email for) and send an appropriately > constructed series so they can all be applied together, based on the > tree here: > > https://github.com/amboar/linux/tree/for/bmc/dt So I'm not sure why there's confusion and speculation as to which tree should be used :( Note that the for/bmc/dt branch above is currently based on v6.12-rc1. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/fbdc9efe87a1bed9fea7d0abaf955aa1a3dc24ac.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Anyway, I asked that because I have already applied one of the Yosemite4 patches there, and developing the remaining patches against any other tree will again cause conflicts (due to the lack of that patch). More broadly though, Patrick is right: If you're sending your patches upstream, it is required that you develop and test your patches against an appropriate upstream tree. Usually this is the most recent -rc1 tag, unless there are reasons otherwise (such as conflicts). The OpenBMC kernel fork is not an appropriate tree on which to base work you intend to send upstream. Thanks, Andrew
