On 06/11/2013 03:23 PM, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:30:46PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> I believe the whole thing should go via the MFD tree. It touches also >> input & iio subsystem. I collected ACKs where I got some in the meantime. > Please fix your commit logs, and your subject lines. It should be e.g. > mfd: input: ti_am335x_adc: Blablabla > > if it's mostly an mfd patch that also touches an input driver. > > Then, this is a pretty big patchset, with iio, input and mfd all mixed > together and it is likely to create merge conflicts. > From what I can see from it, and please correct me if I'm > wrong, the iio and input changes depend on the mfd ones, and not the > other way around. If that's so, I'm going to ask you to reshuffle your > patch set and separate the MFD changes from the iio and input ones. I'll > take the MFD ones and will create an immutable branch for Jonathan and > Dmitry to pull from and apply the iio and input changes on top of it. > Merge conflicts should be mostly avoided that way. I'd just like to note for future reference that I would prefer Samuels approach of such a branch for future cases where things touch on iio and another subsystem. Now as I've expressed I am happy with this set going through mfd but there is never anything wrong with agreeing how things 'should' be done ;) > AFAICT, only patch #2 should be kept with input and iio bits mixed > together with MFD as otherwise this would introduce functional breakage. > Otherwise, all MFD bits from the other patches could be either separated > or merged together (e.g. MFD bits from patches #6 and #8, and #16 and > #17). > > Does that sound doable to you ? > > Cheers, > Samuel. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
