On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 09:26 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:25 PM andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:25:18PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > If no one > > > else will take the pinctrl part then I can probably do pinctrl > > > patches > > > for v5.6 cycle. > > > > For pin control Intel, since we send PR to Linus and it won't be > > different to > > him, we would like to see patch per driver. > > It is generally good to bundle these changes because so many > driver maintainers are passive. (Not Intel!) That reminded me.. I got 'unknown recipient' replies <nandor.han@xxxxxx>: 550 5.1.1 No such user - pp <semi.malinen@xxxxxx>: 550 5.1.1 No such user - pp from both Semi and Nandor - who seem to be the only maintainers listed for XRA1403 GPIO EXPANDER in MAINTAINERS. XRA1403 GPIO EXPANDER M: Nandor Han <nandor.han@xxxxxx> M: Semi Malinen <semi.malinen@xxxxxx> L: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx S: Maintained F: drivers/gpio/gpio-xra1403.c F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-xra1403.txt Anyone knows new mail addresses or perhaps the separate entry for XRA1403 should be removed? > If you are concerned, what about we just make a separate patch > for the drivers under drivers/pinctrl/intel and bundle the rest? > Possibly Geert want the sh-pfc changes separately as well > as he build his own pinctrl changes. > > Rough consensus and working patches. In general - Which one is harder? xD But this works for me. Br, Matti Vaittinen
