From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 0/4] Add support emac for the RK3036 SoC platform Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:17:59 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1451287341-16453-1-git-send-email-zhengxing@rock-chips.com> <20151229.155314.1522114236952280828.davem@davemloft.net> <3925713.yDzK1dvrIv@diego> <20151229.204847.578920480799799256.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151229.204847.578920480799799256.davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: David Miller Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= , zhengxing-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org, "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , Kees Cook , leozwang-hpIqsD4AKlcxg7vii5yOFA@public.gmane.org, Russell King , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Paul Gortmaker , Kumar Gala , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi David, On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 2:48 AM, David Miller wro= te: > From: Heiko St=C3=BCbner > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:27:55 +0100 >> Am Dienstag, 29. Dezember 2015, 15:53:14 schrieb David Miller: >>> You have to submit this series properly, the same problem happend t= wice >>> now. >>> >>> When you submit a series you should: >>> >>> 1) Make it clear which tree you expect these changes to be applied >>> to. Here it is completely ambiguous, do you want it to go into >>> my networking tree or some other subsystem tree? >>> >>> 2) You MUST keep all parties informed about all patches for a serie= s >>> like this. That means you cannot drop netdev from patch #4 as >>> you did both times. Doing this aggravates the situation for >>> #1 even more, because if a patch is not CC:'d to netdev it does >>> not enter patchwork. And if it doesn't go into patchwork, I'm >>> not looking at it. >> >> I guess that is some unfortunate result of git send-email combined w= ith >> get_maintainer.pl . In general I also prefer to see the whole series= , but have >> gotten such partial series from other maintainers as well in the pas= t, so it >> seems to be depending on preferences somewhat. >> >> For the series at hand, the 4th patch is the devicetree addition, wh= ich the >> expected way is me picking it up, after you are comfortable with the= code- >> related changes. > > Why would it not be appropriate for a DT file change to go into my tr= ee > if it corresponds to functionality created by the rest of the patches > in the series? Because the DT change is very likely to conflict with other DT changes. That's why typically all DT changes go in through the platform/architec= ture maintainer. > It looks better to put it all together as a unit, via one series, wit= h > a merge commit containing your "[PATCH 0/N]" description in the commi= t > message. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-= m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker= =2E But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something li= ke that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html