On 1/23/24 08:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/01/2024 09:57, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >> >> >> On 1/23/24 08:44, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>>> However I don't fully understand why that dependency - except patch hunk >>>> context - exists. You shouldn't have such dependency. >>>> >>> Let me try offline, I'll get back to you. >> >> The dropped patches depend on the dt-bindings patch that you queued >> through the "next/drivers" branch: >> >> b393a6c5e656 dt-bindings: clock: google,gs101-clock: add PERIC0 clock >> management unit >> >> We need the peric0 bindings that are referenced in device tree, that's >> why the next/dt64 branch failed to build. >> >> Please let me know if there's something on my side that I have to do >> (now or in the future). > > It is useful to mention this in cover letter, so I will know how to > apply the patches. I understand therefore the dependency mention in the Thanks for the patience, I learn along the way. > cover letter is not accurate, so I can ignore that aspect. > Yes, that's right. The dependency on name fixes is just as a patch hunk context, no functional or build dependencies. I now know the process, and I'll be more verbose next time. Cheers, ta
