On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:10:58AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:40:13AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:18:43AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > Hi Shawn, > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 10/10] ARM64: dts: imx7ulp: update usb compatible > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:25:04PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Per binding doc, update the compatible > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > ARM: dts: imx7ulp: ... > > > > > > > > Fixed it up and applied all DTS patches. > > > [Peng Fan] > > > > > > Thanks for the fix. But I think Greg already applied the patchset. > > > > Okay, I will drop them from my tree, but ... > > > > Greg, > > > > May I suggest a couple of things on the future process? > > > > - Could you leave i.MX DTS patches to me, so that we can avoid potential > > merge conflicts? > > How am I supposed to know this? Aren't we using patch prefix to tell the target subsystem? > Our tools take the whole patch series, > not individual ones. If someone wants patches to go through different > trees, then they need to submit them as different patch series, > otherwise it makes no sense. It's a quite common practice that people send a series containing multiple patches targeting different subsystems, as that's what reviewers have been asking for sake of completeness. So we are asking for two opposite things from what I can see. Shawn
