Re: [STLinux Kernel] [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP

[Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin-qxv4g6HH51o@public.gmane.org>]

On 09/30/2015 04:28 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested.  Without
>>> the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless.  So
>>> I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five
>>> which add the driver.
>> That's crazy talk.  If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule
>> there would be chaos.  We'd either need to send pull-requests to each
>> other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of
>> merge conflicts would ensue at merge time.
>>
>> The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't
>> a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their
>> respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with
>> us as maintainers.  Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou
>> shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems
>> without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this
>> though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request".
> So you want the series to be merged in two parts via two different
> trees where neither can be tested? That sounds crazy to me.
>

Yes, that's what we want, and that's how people work usually.
I will repeat what Lee was saying, what we have to ensure as maintainer 
is that our tree is building.
We will be able to test it with linux-next.

Regards,
Maxime


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html