[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgvH4ROUQVgusBdA@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:33:53 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Provide and use generic_handle_irq_safe() where
appropriate.
On 2022-02-15 15:16:36 [+0000], Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > On 2022-02-15 14:36:01 [+0000], Lee Jones wrote:
> > > Do we really need to coordinate this series cross-subsystem?
> >
> > I would suggest to merge it via irq subsystem but I leave the logistics
> > to tglx.
>
> Could you answer by other questions too please?
I don't think that I can answer them. I said I leave the logistics to
tglx.
This can go via one merge via irq. This can also go differently i.e.
feature branch on top of 5.17-rc1 (with 1/7) which is merge into each
subsystem and then the "feature" on top.
Either way it remains bisect-able since each driver is changed
individually. There is no need to merge them in one go but since it is
that small it probably makes sense. But I don't do the logistics here.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists