Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] Bluetooth: qca: fix device-address endianness

Doug Anderson
2024-03-19T17:34:16Z

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:28 AM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > I guess I have a different opinion on the matter. I often end up
> > cherry-picking stuff to older branches and I generally assume that
> > it's relatively safe to pick the beginning of a series without picking
> > later patches because I assume everyone has a goal of bisectability.
> > This breaks that assumption. IMO splitting up the Qualcomm Bluetooth
> > patch into two patches doesn't help enough with clarity to justify.
>
> I did that in v2 because then the two patches had to be split to
> facilitate backporting as wcn3991 support was added later.
>
> But the big issue here is taking the patches through different trees. If
> Bjorn could ack the DT patch so that everything goes through the
> Bluetooth tree, then I guess I can reorder the DT patch and squash the
> two driver patches.
>
> But waiting several weeks just to make sure that the DT patch hits
> mainline (and the binding patch before that?) before the driver fixes
> can go in just does not seem worth it to me.

Personally, I don't care quite as much about them going through the
same tree. It'd be nice, but I agree with you that it's probably not
worth the hassle (though I wouldn't object if Bjorn wanted to Ack the
dts) and it's fine with me if the patches "meet up" in mainline. In my
case, though, I could imagine following the "Link" tag in the patches
and arriving at the mailing list post. That's where I'd go back and
look to see the order which I should apply the patches safely. ...and
I'd prefer that it shows an order that lets things apply safely.

-Doug