On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 06:09:24PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote: > Hi Uwe, > > Thanks very much for your review. > > On 2024/12/27 15:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:49:14PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote: > > > Add rockchip,rk3562-pwm compatible string. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kever Yang<kever.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > What is your merge plan here? From my POV merging the pwm update via my > > pwm tree would be the easiest. But if you want to let it go via (say) > > arm-soc to have it all in a single tree soon and then base new > > development on top of that, that would be fine for me, too. > I send this in a patch set for a new soc and board because there is > no driver change needed, and I think it would be more clear for the new soc > support. It will be great if maintainers like you can pick the patches > for the module which I guess is preferred way in the kernel maintain rule? > Or else I have to follow the comments fromKrzysztof to send patches one > by one separately. Sometimes it's sensible to let a complete machine/SoC support go in together via a single tree, but if there are no such necessities, that's fine for me. In that case it's a good idea to explicitly mention dependencies between the patches in the cover letter and ask for individual application. Best regards Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
