On 20/03/2024 09:18, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:09:02AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/03/2024 08:25, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:56:46 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: >>>>> This series addresses a few problems with the sc8280xp PCIe >>>>> implementation. > >>>> Applied, thanks! >>>> >>>> [4/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: add missing PCIe minimum OPP >>>> commit: 2b621971554a94094cf489314dc1c2b65401965c >>> >>> I noticed that you applied both of these for 6.10, but this one is a fix >>> that should go into 6.9. >> >> Well, mixing fixes for different cycles in one patchset was always >> discouraged. In case of some subsystems you would receive clear >> response, that you must split fixes out of the patchset. >> >> Fixes being first in the patchset would be probably accepted by the rest >> of subsystems, but putting it in the middle of the patchset is wrong. > > Perhaps you should not comment before reading up on the history of this > series. > > This was all intended for 6.9, but merging was stalled for a number of > reasons so here we are. The patches were also going in through different > trees, so patch 4/5 is the first Qualcomm SoC patch. Again, well, you sent it at few days before merge window, so how do you imagine this being applied for v6.9 and still fulfilling "few linux-next cycles before merge window" requirement? Especially that arm-soc cut off is much earlier :/. I talk about patch 5, of course, because that is not a fix (at least not marked as one). Don't expect in general a arms-co patch to be applied four days before merge window, thus the actual fix - patch #4 - should be split. Best regards, Krzysztof
