[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f54805f-f06d-4732-a124-270a36dbff4f@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:52:42 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com
Cc: Linux4Microchip@...rochip.com,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux][PATCH v2 04/20] dt-bindings: spi: add PIC64GX SPI/QSPI
compatibility to MPFS SPI/QSPI bindings
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:54:33AM +0100, pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com wrote:
> From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com>
>
> PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
> fallback mechanism
You've not copied me on the rest of the series so I don't know what's
going on with dependencies. When sending a patch series it is important
to ensure that all the various maintainers understand what the
relationship between the patches as the expecation is that there will be
interdependencies. Either copy everyone on the whole series or at least
copy them on the cover letter and explain what's going on. If there are
no strong interdependencies then it's generally simplest to just send
the patches separately to avoid any possible confusion.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists