On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:36:07PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Greg, > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 06:51:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > The two macros FBTFT_REGISTER_DRIVER and FBTFT_REGISTER_SPI_DRIVER > > contain quite some duplication: Both define an spi driver and an of device > > table and the differences are quite subtle. > > > > So create two new macros and use both twice. > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220118181338.207943-2-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > You picked this patch into your staging-next branch, I guess from the > original submission. Not sure how Mark wants to continue with the series > from this thread, but at least my plan was that he will create an > immutable branch on top of 5.17-rc2 (assuming 5.17-rc2 will contain > "staging: fbtft: Fix error path in fbtft_driver_module_init()") with the > remaining 4 patches in this series. That's fine, I can pull from that. > In a private mail you agreed to this procedure, but this didn't stop you > taking this patch?! What is your plan here? The obvious (to me) options > are: > > - Delay this series until after the next merge window. > - You back out this patch from staging-next and ack here for Mark to > apply it to an immutable branch. > - You keep this patch in staging-next and still ack here for Mark to > apply it to an immutable branch. Then the patch would be included > twice. Included twice is fine, or I can revert it in the staging tree. Don't let staging tree issues prevent you from doing real work in the other part of the kernel, I can manage merges and other issues like this very easily. thanks, greg k-h
