On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 01:04:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 11:56 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/10/2022 1:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Currently the header inclusion inside the pinctrl headers seems more arbitrary > > > than logical. This series is basically out of two parts: > > > - add missed headers to the pin control drivers / users > > > - clean up the headers of pin control subsystem > > > > > > The idea is to have this series to be pulled after -rc1 by the GPIO and > > > pin control subsystems, so all new drivers will utilize cleaned up headers > > > of the pin control. > > > > > > Please, review and comment. > > > > Did you really need to split this on a per-driver basis as opposed to > > just a treewide drivers/pinctrl, drivers/media and drivers/gpiolib patch > > set? > > > > 36 patches seems needlessly high when 4 patches could have achieve the > > same outcome. > > I can combine them if maintainers ask for that, nevertheless for Intel > pin control and GPIO drivers, which I care more about, I would like to > leave as separate changes (easy to see in history what was done). I can now tell why I don't like to combine. While doing a revert (it's not related to GPIO nor to pin control), it appears that I reverted extra bits as merge conflict resolution. This is per se is not an issue, but when I tried to find and reapply that missed piece I can't, because the patch is combined and Git simply ignores to have `git cherry-pick _something in the past_` done. But again, up to maintainers. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
