Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions with fsl,pins property

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>, Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"imx@lists.linux.dev" <imx@lists.linux.dev>,
	"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions with fsl,pins property
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:11:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zl8EiqiBNvoYuq4r@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DU0PR04MB941706D2E6FA25AD23B4863C88F82@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 12:49:13AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions with
> > fsl,pins property
> >
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 08:36:27AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Hi Linus, Sudeep, Cristian,
> > >
> > > > Subject: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions
> > > > with fsl,pins property
> > >
> > > Sorry if this is an early ping to you. Just wanna this not blocking
> > > i.MX95 upstream support.
> > >
> >
> > I would say yes as this was posted bang in the middle of the merge window.
> > So it is possible for people to miss this if they are busy otherwise.
> >
> > I wouldn't have responded in general or if someone is new to the Linux kernel
> > development. But you are no new to kernel development.
> >
> > In general I also have a suggestion for you. Avoid churning the dependent
> > patch series if the base set of patches are not yet reviewed or agreed upon.
> > I was super confused with the amount of different concurrent but dependent
> > patch series you had for this whole i.MX SCMI pinmux support. I had ignored
> > and not responded in the past but thought it would be good to respond in
> > this thread.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.  I tried to do different implementations that
> could make all of us agree, so it was indeed many versions with different
> implementations. Sorry. I will improve.
>

Thanks and sorry again if it is harsh but it was indeed confusing.

> BTW: would you please also give an ACK for patch 3, because patch 3 uses
> module_scmi_driver?

Done.

--
Regards,
Sudeep