Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] gpiolib: add gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep

From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ulf Hansson" <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	"Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	"David Lechner" <dlechner@baylibre.com>,
	"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andy@kernel.org>,
	"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	"Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@metafoo.de>,
	"Michael Hennerich" <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
	"Peter Rosin" <peda@axentia.se>, "Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"Heiner Kallweit" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	"Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Vinod Koul" <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@kernel.org>,
	"Nuno Sá" <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
	"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@perex.cz>,
	"Takashi Iwai" <tiwai@suse.com>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-sound@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] gpiolib: add gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 13:20:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250208132022.564e7a46@jic23-huawei> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdmN2wqwwnea0gtTQJ+Y5twQaJp6iEL2esEMCHDi8bvVg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 14:20:16 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 11:48 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 08:49, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:  
> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:48 PM David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com> wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > Maintainers, if you prefer to have this go through the gpio tree, please
> > > > give your Acked-by:, otherwise I will resend what is left after the next
> > > > kernel release.  
> 
> > > I can provide an immutable branch for the entire series for everyone
> > > to pull or I can apply patch one, provide an immutable branch and
> > > every subsystem can take their respective patches. What do you prefer?  
> >
> > The changes look small and trivial to me. I wouldn't mind if you take
> > them all (at least for mmc). An immutable branch would be good, if it
> > turns out that we need to pull them.  
> 
> +1 here, the potential user for immutable branch/tag is IIO.
> The rest looks trivial and unlikely to have conflicts.

Whilst I'm not sure if we'll need it, definitely good to have immutable
branch just in case.

There is another change to the ad7606 on list, but it's no where near
this code so shouldn't be a problem however this goes in.
My slight preference would be an immutable with a tag on patch 1.
I'll pull that and apply the IIO ones on top.

If you want to grab the lot though that should be fine as well.

Jonathan

> 

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy