On 21/11/2024 13:26, Stanislav Jakubek wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but this patch seems incorrect to me. > The 1st patch suggets that the sc9632-uart is incompatible with sc9836-uart, > but here you make it fallback to it anyway. > > Also, both of the patches seem to have made it to linux-next without the > reviews/Acks from maintainers. Maybe Greg was a bit too fast here :) Yeah, this looks odd and considering totally empty commit msg (nothing useful there), it looks like wrong choice. Please explain the compatibility aspects. In the future: you have entire commit msg to describe the hardware, instead of repeating the obvious - what is visible from the diff. Best regards, Krzysztof
