On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24) > > > > > > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk > > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes > > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this > > > upcoming merge window. > > > > > > > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to > > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape. > > Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch > series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on > something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it. > Hi Stephen, Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into clk-next. If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll fix them and send v5 only for clock. > > > > Do you prefer to get pull requests for clock patches? I wasn't aware of that. > > But if you prefer that, we can find someone who prepares every merge window a > > pull request. > > > > I don't really care one way or the other about pull requests vs. > manually applying patches. It helps if someone wants to pick the patches > up and send them along when there are complex dependencies between the > clk patches and dts bits or something like that. It also helps if > there's someone else with knowledge of the particular SoC saying "these > are good, please pull these patches". Subsystem maintainers obviously > aren't experts in all SoCs and their various quirks, plus datasheets > aren't always so widely available, so sharing the load with SoC > maintainers who are familiar with the hardware usually makes a lot of > sense. > > Otherwise, if you just want to put your "Reviewed-by" tag on any patches > that look good and are sane then I'll quickly understand that these > patches are good and that I should pick them up into the clk tree from > the list. Just please communicate one way or the other about patches > that you care about because it helps to know if they've gotten attention > or not. >
