linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 337 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
(but the same patch):

  4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")

This is commit

  7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")

in the mfd tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> (but the same patch):
>
>   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
>
> This is commit
>
>   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
>
> in the mfd tree.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Hi Stephen, Lee!

I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
the driver.

Bart

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> > (but the same patch):
> >
> >   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> >
> > This is commit
> >
> >   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> >
> > in the mfd tree.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> 
> Hi Stephen, Lee!
> 
> I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
> driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
> like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
> the driver.

This is the first I've heard of it.  There was no reply from you, even
after I specifically asked you for an explanation.

There is no convincing reason for this to follow the C change.  It's
more important to avoid Linus from facing merge-conflicts during the
merge-window. Please remove the patch from your tree.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:04 PM Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> > > (but the same patch):
> > >
> > >   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > >
> > > This is commit
> > >
> > >   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > >
> > > in the mfd tree.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > Hi Stephen, Lee!
> >
> > I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
> > driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
> > like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
> > the driver.
>
> This is the first I've heard of it.  There was no reply from you, even
> after I specifically asked you for an explanation.
>

Huh, I now see your email in lore[1] but I don't have it in my inbox,
not even in spam. I would have answered otherwise.

> There is no convincing reason for this to follow the C change.  It's
> more important to avoid Linus from facing merge-conflicts during the
> merge-window. Please remove the patch from your tree.
>

This is why I'm asking if this caused a conflict. Whatever, I'll drop
it alright.

Bartosz

> --
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240223102039.GK10170@google.com/

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the gpio-brgl tree

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 12:04 PM Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 7:41 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > The following commit is also in the mfd tree as A different commit
> > > > (but the same patch):
> > > >
> > > >   4a7b0850fc7a ("dt-bindings: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > > >
> > > > This is commit
> > > >
> > > >   7b79740d42e7 ("dt-bindings: mfd: cros-ec: Add properties for GPIO controller")
> > > >
> > > > in the mfd tree.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Stephen Rothwell
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen, Lee!
> > >
> > > I picked it up because I was already queuing the patch adding the GPIO
> > > driver. Unless there are conflicts with the MFD branch (doesn't seem
> > > like it?), I think it should go through the GPIO branch together with
> > > the driver.
> >
> > This is the first I've heard of it.  There was no reply from you, even
> > after I specifically asked you for an explanation.
> >
> 
> Huh, I now see your email in lore[1] but I don't have it in my inbox,
> not even in spam. I would have answered otherwise.
> 
> > There is no convincing reason for this to follow the C change.  It's
> > more important to avoid Linus from facing merge-conflicts during the
> > merge-window. Please remove the patch from your tree.
> >
> 
> This is why I'm asking if this caused a conflict. Whatever, I'll drop
> it alright.

Maybe there aren't any conflicts yet, but we are still early in the
cycle and prevention is better than cure.  Thanks for dropping it.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]