[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zl8EiqiBNvoYuq4r@bogus>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:11:54 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>, Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions with
fsl,pins property
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 12:49:13AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions with
> > fsl,pins property
> >
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 08:36:27AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Hi Linus, Sudeep, Cristian,
> > >
> > > > Subject: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: scmi: support i.MX95 OEM extensions
> > > > with fsl,pins property
> > >
> > > Sorry if this is an early ping to you. Just wanna this not blocking
> > > i.MX95 upstream support.
> > >
> >
> > I would say yes as this was posted bang in the middle of the merge window.
> > So it is possible for people to miss this if they are busy otherwise.
> >
> > I wouldn't have responded in general or if someone is new to the Linux kernel
> > development. But you are no new to kernel development.
> >
> > In general I also have a suggestion for you. Avoid churning the dependent
> > patch series if the base set of patches are not yet reviewed or agreed upon.
> > I was super confused with the amount of different concurrent but dependent
> > patch series you had for this whole i.MX SCMI pinmux support. I had ignored
> > and not responded in the past but thought it would be good to respond in
> > this thread.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion. I tried to do different implementations that
> could make all of us agree, so it was indeed many versions with different
> implementations. Sorry. I will improve.
>
Thanks and sorry again if it is harsh but it was indeed confusing.
> BTW: would you please also give an ACK for patch 3, because patch 3 uses
> module_scmi_driver?
Done.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists