From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753817AbbI3Ou7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:50:59 -0400 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:55909 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752893AbbI3Ouw (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:50:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [STLinux Kernel] [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP To: Herbert Xu , Lee Jones References: <1442497557-9271-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150918140756.GK9249@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918151137.GA10763@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918155112.GE3218@x1> <20150929142932.GY27197@x1> <20150930134757.GA18408@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150930141539.GD27197@x1> <20150930142812.GA19039@gondor.apana.org.au> CC: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Korsgaard , "kernel@stlinux.com" , Kieran Bingham , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , , Fabio Estevam , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <560BF693.2090405@st.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:49:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150930142812.GA19039@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.201.23.80] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-09-30_11:2015-09-30,2015-09-30,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/30/2015 04:28 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: >>> I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested. Without >>> the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless. So >>> I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five >>> which add the driver. >> That's crazy talk. If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule >> there would be chaos. We'd either need to send pull-requests to each >> other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of >> merge conflicts would ensue at merge time. >> >> The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't >> a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their >> respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with >> us as maintainers. Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou >> shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems >> without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this >> though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request". > So you want the series to be merged in two parts via two different > trees where neither can be tested? That sounds crazy to me. > Yes, that's what we want, and that's how people work usually. I will repeat what Lee was saying, what we have to ensure as maintainer is that our tree is building. We will be able to test it with linux-next. Regards, Maxime