linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] dt-bindings: pwm: rockchip: Add rockchip,rk3562-pwm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <qtcyfcdgrtyjtwaexxkspbvncdckpzentq4nmxthr4hgtfzqvx@x44hdqzkisqv>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 11:21:57 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>
Cc: heiko@...ech.de, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] dt-bindings: pwm: rockchip: Add
 rockchip,rk3562-pwm

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 06:09:24PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
> 
>     Thanks very much for your review.
> 
> On 2024/12/27 15:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:49:14PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
> > > Add rockchip,rk3562-pwm compatible string.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kever Yang<kever.yang@...k-chips.com>
> > What is your merge plan here? From my POV merging the pwm update via my
> > pwm tree would be the easiest. But if you want to let it go via (say)
> > arm-soc to have it all in a single tree soon and then base new
> > development on top of that, that would be fine for me, too.
> I send this in a patch set for a new soc and board because there is
> no driver change needed, and I think it would be more clear for the new soc
> support. It will be great if maintainers like you can pick the patches
> for the module which I guess is preferred way in the kernel maintain rule?
> Or else I have to follow the comments fromKrzysztof to send patches one
> by one separately.

Sometimes it's sensible to let a complete machine/SoC support go in
together via a single tree, but if there are no such necessities, that's
fine for me.

In that case it's a good idea to explicitly mention dependencies between
the patches in the cover letter and ask for individual application.

Best regards
Uwe

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)