Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Devicetrees for v6.10

From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, <soc@kernel.org>,
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Devicetrees for v6.10
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 10:58:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240507-hungrily-squash-2ac370e05fc0@wendy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5222e581-a189-4477-ba6a-edf4ce369eb0@app.fastmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1821 bytes --]

On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 11:27:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024, at 17:24, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey Arnd,
> >
> > Please pull some dt updates for v6.10. The diff here is a little bigger
> > than my tag implies, but I've done this on top of -fixes and wanted to
> > make this obvious. I've also not really mentioned all the Kconfig stuff
> > much as you'll get that in another branch.
> 
> Hi Conor,
> 
> I don't have a good feeling about pulling this one, given that it
> is both really late and that it pulls in more dependencies than
> we'd like to have.
> 
> I was really hoping to be done with new features last week
> as I pulled in the other branches. There are two other DT
> pull requests I got after that (amlogic and aspeed), which
> I added to a "soc/dt-late" branch that I could send in the
> second week of the merge window if everything goes well, but
> those don't have the dependencies.
> 
> If you are able to extract the DT bits that don't depend
> on other branches (jh7xxx, microchip, bindings and
> new files) and resend those, I could still add them to the
> same dt-late branch.

The jh7xxx stuff does actually depend on another branch, although that
branch is fixes. Do you want that removed too? If you do, I'd say to
just drop the whole PR.

> Basing a branch on top of a fixes branch is usually fine,
> especially if those fixes were originally based on an
> early -rc. I can also make exceptions when there are
> complex dependencies between branches, but I need to be
> able to plan for those and not get them just ahead of
> the merge window.

It hadn't seemed particularly complex to me, so I didn't think to ask
you about what to do with the branches etc when I applied the patches.
I'll be more paranoid in the future...

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv