From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] net: dsa: ksz: Add reset GPIO handling Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 12:11:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20181208111143.GB16502@lunn.ch> References: <20181207215136.2808-1-marex@denx.de> <20181207222402.GA5844@lunn.ch> <7474b022-3925-14fc-c14c-0f3111a0ed92@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, Woojung.Huh@microchip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, "David S . Miller" , Tristram Ha To: Marek Vasut Return-path: Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:38859 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726111AbeLHLLq (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2018 06:11:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7474b022-3925-14fc-c14c-0f3111a0ed92@denx.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > This actually is an individual patch, it doesn't depend on anything. > Or do you mean a series with the DT documentation change ? Yes, i mean together with the DT documentation change. Those two belong together, they are one functional change. Part of this is also to do with scalability. It takes less effort to merge one patchset of two patches, as two individual patches. The truth is, developer time is cheap, maintainer time is expensive, so the process is optimized towards making the maintainers life easy. So sometimes you do combine orthogonal changes together into one patchset, if there is a high purpose, eg. adding support for a new device on a new board. However, given the situation of two overlapping patchsets, it might be better to submit smaller patchsets. Andrew