From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from codeconstruct.com.au (pi.codeconstruct.com.au [203.29.241.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B703718EB0; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 23:44:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.29.241.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727653464; cv=none; b=M+qe+6lgOyKSGM/ZSW8I6OEtdfQGssjmYu7OweydFQ3KKocAKFC4Mjel+zQl2qz7U93cGRoGPJXPjbwQWXLO59qYJgRL1Zq3+PTc3ON+tgbm/uKW3npJVm70VG1S1zvTYL0Uk9M/o08Vs/Z+X89CWPZdteHEQovEe5+49XZbWvY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727653464; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DUHSA+H0FzMEJ1EbxCc6fKlUtQOM8ce4G5R8tqRAodk=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=hjM64+HpWWfHxysQzvNRqe2Z24WAm5tMH1dJGm3XjYbsdqMmcteEJ3UO8956Kmn6TuAok+47pneYjXP1eGVASsRt3lxLvWYW3UfSdJbCju3BWmiDBHnYLLsNq+Tvs652G4rPr4ZS8++/rMvGidYLZmXksRxx72giCiwMRb/Q8tw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeconstruct.com.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codeconstruct.com.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codeconstruct.com.au header.i=@codeconstruct.com.au header.b=ZdMRbD+a; arc=none smtp.client-ip=203.29.241.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeconstruct.com.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codeconstruct.com.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codeconstruct.com.au header.i=@codeconstruct.com.au header.b="ZdMRbD+a" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codeconstruct.com.au; s=2022a; t=1727653460; bh=JwDoGKRxS+YXAWQHk5KGk+HoFswK8C94/IS1YdzMkug=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZdMRbD+aBX0vD0MMmOVvIhJ45cVbGYHTPtdoqZoiAopSOUIOd7Uywyj6nYWafm6Bh OEQz5fh95u5j/n8evDnrJfXc1mN38YJO+lf8Ag8Oqd/KYkSzruTEUzRgxkbhyepB5s 25ShunBzKpjCZFbXoFUSYa3JsbKzr0WYhWA4fz88UCKMRyAZEM0GsOzws+F3rclQIs dAVKEn3NCLuVjCEUcMZWRhrNY4vazqRrUcKa0CiwClHMCX8Rsow5DJIyonWCm4g78F u8bqJO17C55rGlE/O6mwVqN8DuQcBLyNNAlkpDuZ7FCJ96j3FqZ6S4ubIH/z8xHRO5 XjAKRHjiaamGw== Received: from [192.168.68.112] (ppp118-210-187-56.adl-adc-lon-bras34.tpg.internode.on.net [118.210.187.56]) by mail.codeconstruct.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B57765866; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 07:44:18 +0800 (AWST) Message-ID: <16c89a7b9b85d21f1f23aa0d67742c6bde94a295.camel@codeconstruct.com.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ARM: dts: aspeed: yosemite4: Add i2c-mux for CPLD IOE on Spider Board From: Andrew Jeffery To: Patrick Williams , Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Joel Stanley , Ricky CX Wu , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 09:14:17 +0930 In-Reply-To: References: <20240926024133.3786712-1-Delphine_CC_Chiu@wiwynn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi Ricky, Patrick, On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 22:33 -0400, Patrick Williams wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 09:24:11AM +0000, Delphine_CC_Chiu/WYHQ/Wiwynn wr= ote: >=20 > > Would like to ask should I base on the openbmc/linux repo to create the > > remaining patches that have context dependencies and add the lore link > > of the those patches that I've sent in the cover letter? >=20 > I believe you're trying to get the patches applied onto the upstream > tree, so no you should not base on the openbmc/linux repo. That repo is > a 6.6 branch. You need to base the commits on torvalds/linux. >=20 In my previous email[1] I requested: > Please assess the remaining yosemite4 devicetree patches (those you > haven't received a thank-you email for) and send an appropriately > constructed series so they can all be applied together, based on the > tree here: >=20 > https://github.com/amboar/linux/tree/for/bmc/dt So I'm not sure why there's confusion and speculation as to which tree should be used :( Note that the for/bmc/dt branch above is currently based on v6.12-rc1. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/fbdc9efe87a1bed9fea7d0abaf955aa1a3dc24ac.c= amel@codeconstruct.com.au/ Anyway, I asked that because I have already applied one of the Yosemite4 patches there, and developing the remaining patches against any other tree will again cause conflicts (due to the lack of that patch). More broadly though, Patrick is right: If you're sending your patches upstream, it is required that you develop and test your patches against an appropriate upstream tree. Usually this is the most recent -rc1 tag, unless there are reasons otherwise (such as conflicts). The OpenBMC kernel fork is not an appropriate tree on which to base work you intend to send upstream. Thanks, Andrew