[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200624171537.GL5472@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:15:37 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
agross@...nel.org, robdclark@...il.com, robdclark@...omium.org,
stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
sboyd@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alok Chauhan <alokc@...eaurora.org>,
Akash Asthana <akashast@...eaurora.org>,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Use OPP API to set clk/perf
state
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:09:33AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> do you plan to land this in your tree?
>
> I know you hate contentless pings, but since you acked this patch and
> usually don't seem to do that when patches go through your tree I want
> to make sure we aren't in a situation where everybody thinks that the
> patch will go through someone else's tree.
Aren't there dependencies on earlier patches in the series? In general
if someone acks something for their tree that means they don't expect to
apply it themselves.
Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context. This allows
readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
discussion is being addressed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists