On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 17/08/2020 17:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > >> > >> On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > >>> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based > >>> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to > >>> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800 > >>> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi > >>> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't > >>> use secure firmware at all. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This patch waited on list for almost two months and was not picked up. > > Therefore I'll take it for v5.10. > > It happens some patches can fall into the cracks, especially when we are > fully busy with a peak of work. Also, we have filters in our mailers > which are not perfect. A gentle ping is enough to ask to pay attention > to the series. > > I can understand that is annoying, but preemptively pick the patch is > not adequate. I apologize if my message was harsh or sounded rude. That was not my intention. I understand that patches soometimes got missed. That's life. This patch here is quite simple, non-intrusive, got independent ack. Also in the past SoC-specific drivers were sometimes going through SoC tree (so in this case - mine for Samsung). Patch also blocks the dependant DT change (for entire cycle). Therefore I guessed that it won't be a problem and it is just simpler to apply it. If it is an issue, I can drop it and rebase my branch. Best regards, Krzysztof
