On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 11:58:53AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:28 AM Uwe Kleine-König > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > The PWM LPSS device can be embedded in another device. > > > In order to enable it, allow that drivers to probe > > > a corresponding device. > > ... > > > Now that pwm_lpss_boardinfo lives in a different file, this makes the > > move of pwm_lpss_chip in patch 3 somewhat redundant. > > But they are independent changes. At each stage (after each patch) we > should have a finished step, right? Not touching that makes me feel > that the step is half-baked. If you insist I can drop that move from > the other patch. Given that the move is something you do just en passant in the earlier patch , I consider my suggestion cleaner. I'd call that 0.5 * insist. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
