From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 E02E122079; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 08:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710924035; cv=none; b=K5pr/3Ui7GD9qzyPPfAumhT3VkuVSLZt4QQeectsewMu8gojB+k2WZhqsn2opH4IOhYF6YT5W7RG6UU+FXcdLvKa7hvoZSX1xCNhhW4kU23Iws7sY/NJZYi8y6y8EtE3zpt/Er9VaFA4WPNkl53cWy8GJTw+/DvXQiXkHiGJ2Vk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710924035; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EP6W5CkU5wj8hYaU2zzpBiXnfR5QSHzPvzGI68agMwQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uMFWUSR5rmTs8QTtN92UCgYwQIgq83mSCL/j2/kjOEgl9mx1EP7cQHhy/42WWpkLHr3cntT6jB7tHpgt3GEWPPCPIrFH80BdbIeyIMeM9SKyqSNS4/BklTX01vPak2sGmKZuv21YkDGdyptr+O/UavR/lGMBIcrf/ORFzGnDQtY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ABH2SvNM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ABH2SvNM" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 527ABC433C7; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 08:40:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1710924034; bh=EP6W5CkU5wj8hYaU2zzpBiXnfR5QSHzPvzGI68agMwQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ABH2SvNMymYgmtJ6ajtj9ila2dD/mori48MEJ9dIAMWSzUv+ba0K/iefBWK6zD1at WcsrU0uB/z+xEOoU3hAXLeBgfRwAfGuJWZlAG7hgXD2zuQvqkZrNJD6Cd8ZzHyR82j R5xdLZ0oMDHz4IYLD4FthcLeHeL6a1ccigN2bg5gNGtTkNMYfJC8tsj6AVFo9Kzsvn dAGHCfNOtHXiNUA9aZkkZ6MvtDWlWYCLwJ5vBin6+lPsAYV/TGXtBujcQDEXQioG7x qVOrWn01xElhqX+5HU0ndTfnGyCZ+9+rkNmHDL5t7RH7BC5YJUNRFAerVTvlZTZs83 /7LPob9MpugOw== Received: from johan by xi.lan with local (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rmrV2-000000004B1-2Gwb; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:40:41 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:40:40 +0100 From: Johan Hovold To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Bjorn Helgaas , Johan Hovold , Konrad Dybcio , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Manivannan Sadhasivam , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v4 0/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: PCIe fixes and GICv3 ITS enable Message-ID: References: <20240306095651.4551-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org> <171081652637.198276.6219023769904423414.b4-ty@kernel.org> <9b475e13-96b9-4bce-8041-e0d8e5a332a1@linaro.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:24:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/03/2024 09:18, Johan Hovold wrote: > > Perhaps you should not comment before reading up on the history of this > > series. > > > > This was all intended for 6.9, but merging was stalled for a number of > > reasons so here we are. The patches were also going in through different > > trees, so patch 4/5 is the first Qualcomm SoC patch. > > Again, well, you sent it at few days before merge window, so how do you > imagine this being applied for v6.9 and still fulfilling "few linux-next > cycles before merge window" requirement? Especially that arm-soc cut off > is much earlier :/. I talk about patch 5, of course, because that is not > a fix (at least not marked as one). Don't expect in general a arms-co > patch to be applied four days before merge window, thus the actual fix - > patch #4 - should be split. At the time there was still hope that there may be an rc8, and the patch in question had been used by a large number of X13s users for several weeks, which is a lot more testing than the average Qualcomm patch receives, whether it's in linux-next or not. And patch 5 depends on the earlier patches in the series so it belongs in the series, which was also initially posted long before the merge window. I'm sure Bjorn A can handle this in general, even if he failed to notice the CC stable tag or had other reasons for applying the fix for 6.10 instead of 6.9. Johan