On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 05:29:10PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 12:18 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 8 May 2021 20:21:08 +0200 > > Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Unless you really like to base your work on Gregs tree for > > > some reason or other, that is. > > > > Definitely appreciate Greg's help (and patience), but no > > particularly strong reason to waste his time dealing with my > > mess ups. Hopefully they'll reduce now IIO trees are going directly > > into linux-next though. > > I'd suggest to move to sending pulls to Torvalds directly > for IIO to cut the intermediary staging tree step, since > now the subsystem is pretty large and see a bunch of > frequent fixes that need an express path to Torvalds. > > Pushing through Greg per se isn't really the problem, > I think the problem is that IIO is going through the > staging tree which (I guess) isn't a high priority activity > and not expected to carry any serious critical fixes and > I guess this can cause lags. > > Maybe Greg has some other branch to take in IIO > fixes and for-next but I don't really see the point. I can take IIO changes in my char/misc tree like many other driver subsystems go, if the staging portions are not involved. Otherwise, I really don't see the problem with it as-is, what problems is this causing at the moment? thanks, greg k-h
