From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0050470
	for <ksummit@lists.linux.dev>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:51:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF05760FE6;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:51:42 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1619103103;
	bh=UKFwJRDdbiiT/pHn/I/4Vhnh7pvxc3TTP3gH/DQ70lI=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=awlxtowJMX9s2njkoMkFpLZPc36A7KwtfnP73LkRfy66rVIv34lImGWXqxYFuK0Zi
	 yif6nJMbhBDQJb/tXrDfpoGLdSRAKzpjXnhW/ah2dwdmjyKJ5xOIbnqWqaDjPbmWU1
	 QfmAqgtQ8UR1IuQHEJpVVOeTiMXPeZNP43DGEvJVjQY3EJ5xNQlxdcK7PZ2A8HxECR
	 BnuA8bOxgTYVbskWBoYLrGypeVP65rrCH3tfHBMaV0/B7jB/hlkz7wsOrZD9eWhIIQ
	 QGbXYGOQx3sjQwZu7pQt34vVOOlvQvniuGKV84JMycd4kGop8JHCf6jFQHUCDM7XX5
	 KYAZhC76Ix2IQ==
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:51:39 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	ksummit@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for
 "trivial" patches
Message-ID: <YIGNe07xtf1adA/G@unreal>
References: <afc5664dc2b60f912dd97abfa818b3f7c4237b92.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <YID5xhy2vv45fnOv@unreal>
 <20210422112001.22c64fe9@coco.lan>
 <YIFfXTVMDmHwVmSR@unreal>
 <20210422132202.GE4572@sirena.org.uk>
 <20210422161207.3350a36e@coco.lan>
X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <ksummit.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ksummit+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ksummit+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210422161207.3350a36e@coco.lan>

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:12:07PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:22:02 +0100
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> escreveu:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 02:34:53PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > 
> > > Like Christoph said, if it is unrelated send the patches as separated
> > > series.  
> > 
> > A very common case is for MFDs where you've got a core driver which is
> > either being newly added or as far as external interfaces go having some
> > defines added to it and then a bunch of basically unrelated driver
> > patches.  There is often a build time dependency (not so much with the
> > newly added stuff) so there is an actual dependency but no meaningful
> > overlap with reviews.  You get a similar thing with people bringing up
> > new SoCs where they send a minimal set of drivers in the initial series
> > so people can usefully test.
> 
> Another common case are patches changing a kAPI that it is used on
> other subsystems. They should be grouped as a hole, and applied
> altogether, but each subsystem maintainer should ack/review only the
> stuff related to the subsystem's scope.

This is exactly when I want to see all relevant mailing lists to be CCed.

Thanks