Em Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:19:36 +0100 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > This patch series finish addressing support for Hikey 970 > > SPMI controller, PMIC and regulators. > > > > This version was generated with -M, in order to make easier > > to merge upstream. Also, rebased on the top of v5.10, > > without any dependencies from the other patch series > > I'm submitting for this board. > > > > Yet, patch 18 to 20 modifies drivers/staging/hikey9xx/Kconfig > > and drivers/staging/hikey9xx/Makefile. So, trivial conflicts > > will rise if they're applied via different trees, as they all > > remove some lines from such files. > > I've applied the first 13 patches, except for patch 3, as that did not > apply, to my tree, thanks. Ok. I'll rebase the remaining patches on the top of staging-testing branch. > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:08:16AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jan 2021, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:11:24PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:02:39PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 05:57:52PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Is there a branch we can pull from? > > > > > > > > > Once 0-day passes, you can pull from my staging-testing branch from > > > > > staging.git on git.kernel.org if you want. Give it 24 hours to pass > > > > > before it hits that location. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Should be out there now if you want to pull. > > > > > > > > Do you need a tag to pull from? > > > > > > > > It'd be nice but not essential. > > > > > > Why do you want/need this? Having these changes in your tree is good, > > > but what about other coding style cleanups that I will end up applying > > > over time before the 5.12-rc1 merge window opens? Are you wanting to > > > take the moved driver in your tree, or something else? > > > > > > Traditionally moving drivers out of staging can be done 2 ways: > > > - all happens in the staging tree, I take an ack from the > > > subsystem maintainer that this is ok to do. > > > - A new driver enters the "real" subsystem tree, and then I > > > delete the driver in the staging tree. This doesn't preserve > > > history as well (not at all), but can be easier for trees that > > > move quickly (like networking.) > > > > > > Which ever works for you is fine with me, but relying on the code to > > > stay "not touched" in my tree after you pull it almost never happens due > > > to the number of drive-by coding style cleanups that end up in the > > > staging tree every week. > > > > I would have expected the whole set to be merged as a set into a > > single tree, placed on an immutable branch and a pull-request to be > > sent out for the other maintainers to pull from (if they so wished). > > > > This would ensure development could continue on any/all of the > > affected drivers/files. > > > > If it's not too late, I'd be more than happy to facilitate. > > Given these patches are already in my public tree, that might be a bit > harder, why the huge work for this? Worst case, I just keep all of the > patches that do not actually move the code in my tree, and then things > can move after 5.12-rc1. Whatever works best for Lee/Mark. >From my side, I can re-submit the move patches and the DTS ones to be applied after 5.12-rc1, if this would be the preferred way. Thanks, Mauro _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
