On 14/02/2025 16:06, Amelie Delaunay wrote: > On 2/13/25 10:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 04:21:01PM +0100, Amelie Delaunay wrote: >>> Expand config ARCH_STM32 with the new STM32MP21 SoCs family which is >>> composed of STM32MP211, STM32MP213 and STM32MP215 SoCs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> index 844a39620cfea8bfc031a545d85e33894ef20994..f788dbc09c9eb6f5801758ccf6b0ffe50a96090e 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> @@ -325,6 +325,8 @@ config ARCH_STM32 >>> - STM32MP251, STM32MP253, STM32MP255 and STM32MP257. >>> - STM32MP23: >>> - STM32MP231, STM32MP233, STM32MP235. >>> + - STM32MP21: >> >> Squash it with previous patch and keep some sort of order. >> > > Ok for squashing with patch 3. > Do you mean to keep the current chronological order used here or to chronological of what? Adding it? That's the worse of possible orders, because it is basically random invitation to conflicts. If chronological of market release, that's tricky to any contributor to figure out. > change the order because "chronological" is not an appropriate order? In > this case, would the alphanumeric order be fine? Many lists go alphanumerical because it is most obvious and avoids conflicts. Best regards, Krzysztof
