On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 02:04:05PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 02:21:32PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 12:22:22PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:25:06PM GMT, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > > > There are quite a few drivers and options for the DesignWare > > > > > I2C adapter in the Kconfig. Grouping all of them under the > > > > > I2C_DESIGNWARE_CORE. That makes the menuconfig a bit more > > > > > easier to understand. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch, I can take this only after the other > > > > patches have been taken in. > > > > > > I assume then that you're expecting the prereqs to go through the > > > various arch trees? Is this not trivial enough that you could chuck it > > > on a dedicated branch in your tree and if, for some reason, there's a > > > non-trivial conflict the affected could pull it in? > > > > Thanks for your advice: considering that cross-domain patches are > > difficult to handle, I appreciate any suggestion on how to deal > > with them :-) > > It's also helpful if the submitter of a series proposes what path > patches should take upstream. I find that people all look at something > like this and see "someone else's problem" written all over it, and > would be perfectly happy to accept a proposal from a submitter that it > all goes via I2C. > > > Are you suggesting to set these up in a different branch and send > > a pull request out of that branch? > > What I meant was put them in a dedicated branch (so probably on top of > -rc1 or similar) and merge that branch into your for-next branch. If > someone then was to run into a non-trivial conflict you could tag the > dedicated branch and they could pull it into their tree. > > > I don't want here to step into other people branches if they > > don't ack or express any thought. > > Sure, I wouldn't either, but it far from abnormal for driver subsystem > maintainer to take these sort of rename/dependency addition patches and > the normal path for 3 of the 5 architectures affected here is via Arnd > and I figure there's a low probability of the maintainers of those > architectures having their feels hurt. Thanks Conor! I will take it into i2c, then. In any case, Stephen will check if there will be duplicates. Thanks, Andi
