linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 337 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
(but the same patch):

  4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")

This is commit

  7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")

in the mfd tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> (but the same patch):
>
>   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
>
> This is commit
>
>   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
>
> in the mfd tree.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Hi Stephen, Lee!

I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
the driver.

Bart

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> > (but the same patch):
> >
> >   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> >
> > This is commit
> >
> >   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> >
> > in the mfd tree.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> 
> Hi Stephen, Lee!
> 
> I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
> driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
> like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
> the driver.

This is the first I've heard of it.  There was no reply from you, even
after I specifically asked you for an explanation.

There is no convincing reason for this to follow the C change.  It's
more important to avoid Linus from facing merge-conflicts during the
merge-window. Please remove the patch from your tree.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:04 PM Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> > > (but the same patch):
> > >
> > >   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > >
> > > This is commit
> > >
> > >   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > >
> > > in the mfd tree.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > Hi Stephen, Lee!
> >
> > I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
> > driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
> > like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
> > the driver.
>
> This is the first I've heard of it.  There was no reply from you, even
> after I specifically asked you for an explanation.
>

Huh, I now see your email in lore[1] but I don't have it in my inbox,
not even in spam. I would have answered otherwise.

> There is no convincing reason for this to follow the C change.  It's
> more important to avoid Linus from facing merge-conflicts during the
> merge-window. Please remove the patch from your tree.
>

This is why I'm asking if this caused a conflict. Whatever, I'll drop
it alright.

Bartosz

> --
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240223102039.GK10170@google.com/

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:04 PM Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> > > > (but the same patch):
> > > >
> > > >   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > > >
> > > > This is commit
> > > >
> > > >   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > > >
> > > > in the mfd tree.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen, Lee!
> > >
> > > I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
> > > driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
> > > like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
> > > the driver.
> >
> > This is the first I've heard of it.  There was no reply from you, even
> > after I specifically asked you for an explanation.
> >
> 
> Huh, I now see your email in lore[1] but I don't have it in my inbox,
> not even in spam. I would have answered otherwise.
> 
> > There is no convincing reason for this to follow the C change.  It's
> > more important to avoid Linus from facing merge-conflicts during the
> > merge-window. Please remove the patch from your tree.
> >
> 
> This is why I'm asking if this caused a conflict. Whatever, I'll drop
> it alright.

Maybe there aren't any conflicts yet, but we are still early in the
cycle and prevention is better than cure.  Thanks for dropping it.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in the gpio-brgl-fixes tree as a different
commit (but the same patch):

  ae495810cffe ("gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter")

This is commit

  00aaae60faf5 ("gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter")

in the gpio-brgl-fixes tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 3:52 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The following commit is also in the gpio-brgl-fixes tree as a different
> commit (but the same patch):
>
>   ae495810cffe ("gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter")
>
> This is commit
>
>   00aaae60faf5 ("gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter")
>
> in the gpio-brgl-fixes tree.
>

Hi Stephen,

I had applied this as ae495810cffe to my v6.19 queue earlier into the
cycle. Then it turned out it's needed in v6.18 as part of a regression
fix. At this point it was too late for an immutable branch and I
didn't want to rebase my for-next tree. I decided to just cherry pick
it into for-current, send it upstream and then pull back v6.18-rc3
into my for-next and resolve the conflict. Does this work for you?

Bartosz

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]

Hi Bartosz,

On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:48:25 +0200 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> I had applied this as ae495810cffe to my v6.19 queue earlier into the
> cycle. Then it turned out it's needed in v6.18 as part of a regression
> fix. At this point it was too late for an immutable branch and I
> didn't want to rebase my for-next tree. I decided to just cherry pick
> it into for-current, send it upstream and then pull back v6.18-rc3
> into my for-next and resolve the conflict. Does this work for you?

It's fine.  One or 2 duplicated patches don't really matter unless they
cause conflicts.  These notifications are mainly just in case you did
it by accident and want to clean it up.  (Or to try to dissuade people
from cherry picking things regularly).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 365 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
(but the same patch):

  ae495810cffe ("gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter")

This is commit

  00aaae60faf5 ("gpio: regmap: add the .fixed_direction_output configuration parameter")

in Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]