> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 7:44 AM > To: Patrick Williams <patrick@xxxxxxxxx>; Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn > <Delphine_CC_Chiu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>; Ricky CX > Wu <ricky.cx.wu.wiwynn@xxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-aspeed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ARM: dts: aspeed: yosemite4: Add i2c-mux for CPLD > IOE on Spider Board > > [External Sender] > > [External Sender] > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/amboar/linux/tree/for/b > > > mc/dt__;!!J63qqgXj!N56Dq0KcUR0NerePsoY0JUBCDvFG_F3KyRF0D4qNdu_Ozc > SGVPC > > SBOJk6u28AWPfgDRWsLE1B__-_ZNVKYv-zhc_6PY$ > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/fbdc9efe87a1bed9fea7 > d0abaf955aa1a3dc24ac.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!J63qqgXj!N56Dq0 > KcUR0NerePsoY0JUBCDvFG_F3KyRF0D4qNdu_OzcSGVPCSBOJk6u28AWPfgDRW > sLE1B__-_ZNVKYv-uNCc7qE$ > > 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 Hi Andrew, Sorry for my misunderstanding. So I should combine the remaining yosemite4 device tree patches as a single serial based on torvalds/linux and test on openbmc/linux then send the serial patches to torvalds/linux. And you will help to fix the conflicts when you apply the serial patches to openbmc/linux. Do I understand it correctly?
