Hi, On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:28 AM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I guess I have a different opinion on the matter. I often end up > > cherry-picking stuff to older branches and I generally assume that > > it's relatively safe to pick the beginning of a series without picking > > later patches because I assume everyone has a goal of bisectability. > > This breaks that assumption. IMO splitting up the Qualcomm Bluetooth > > patch into two patches doesn't help enough with clarity to justify. > > I did that in v2 because then the two patches had to be split to > facilitate backporting as wcn3991 support was added later. > > But the big issue here is taking the patches through different trees. If > Bjorn could ack the DT patch so that everything goes through the > Bluetooth tree, then I guess I can reorder the DT patch and squash the > two driver patches. > > But waiting several weeks just to make sure that the DT patch hits > mainline (and the binding patch before that?) before the driver fixes > can go in just does not seem worth it to me. Personally, I don't care quite as much about them going through the same tree. It'd be nice, but I agree with you that it's probably not worth the hassle (though I wouldn't object if Bjorn wanted to Ack the dts) and it's fine with me if the patches "meet up" in mainline. In my case, though, I could imagine following the "Link" tag in the patches and arriving at the mailing list post. That's where I'd go back and look to see the order which I should apply the patches safely. ...and I'd prefer that it shows an order that lets things apply safely. -Doug
