Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Mediatek MT8183 clock and scpsys support

[Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@mediatek.com>]

On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24)
> > 
> > 
> > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > 
> > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk
> > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes
> > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this
> > > upcoming merge window.
> > > 
> > 
> > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to
> > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape.
> 
> Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch
> series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on
> something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it.
> 

Hi Stephen,

Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and
others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock
patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series
right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into
clk-next.
If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll
fix them and send v5 only for clock.

> > 
> > Do you prefer to get pull requests for clock patches? I wasn't aware of that.
> > But if you prefer that, we can find someone who prepares every merge window a
> > pull request.
> > 
> 
> I don't really care one way or the other about pull requests vs.
> manually applying patches. It helps if someone wants to pick the patches
> up and send them along when there are complex dependencies between the
> clk patches and dts bits or something like that. It also helps if
> there's someone else with knowledge of the particular SoC saying "these
> are good, please pull these patches". Subsystem maintainers obviously
> aren't experts in all SoCs and their various quirks, plus datasheets
> aren't always so widely available, so sharing the load with SoC
> maintainers who are familiar with the hardware usually makes a lot of
> sense.
> 
> Otherwise, if you just want to put your "Reviewed-by" tag on any patches
> that look good and are sane then I'll quickly understand that these
> patches are good and that I should pick them up into the clk tree from
> the list. Just please communicate one way or the other about patches
> that you care about because it helps to know if they've gotten attention
> or not.
>