Hi Linus, On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:13:31PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:29 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 05:03:53PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > > Liu Ying (2): > > > > driver core: Export device_is_dependent() to modules > > > > drm/bridge: panel: Check device dependency before managing device link > > > > > > I just applied patch 1 directly to the drm-misc-fixes so we don't have to > > > revert and then re-apply patches, because that is a bigger evil. (We can't > > > rebase these branches...) > > > > Erm, you did wait for GKH or Rafael's ACK to do that, right? > > No. > > It is a bigger evil to leave the tree broken than to enforce formal process, > and it is pretty self-evident. If any of them get annoyed about it we can > revert the patch, or both. Yeah, I definitely understand why you did it, but I don't think it's something we would encourage in drm-misc. We've discussed it with Sima yesterday, and I think we would even need the extra check in dim to make sure that a committer shouldn't do that without dim complaining. Sima played a bit with it, and it should be doable to get something fairly reliable if you use get_maintainers.pl to retrieve the git tree (through scripts/get_maintainer.pl --no-email --no-l --scm) and figuring out if only drm.git, drm-intel.git or drm-misc.git is involved. If it isn't, then we should check that there's the ack of one of the maintainers. Could you write a patch to do so? Thanks! Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
