[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6oh9t2QQzz17Yt6@probook>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:57:42 +0000
From: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@...teo.net>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: J. Neuschäfer <j.ne@...teo.net>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] YAML conversion of several Freescale/PowerPC DT
bindings
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:59:35PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 02:20:47AM +0000, J. Neuschäfer wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:38:05PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > What's the story with dependencies here - why is all this stuff in one
> > > series?
>
> > The patches are independent of each other, except for the four elbc/nand
> > patches. They are in the same series because they came up during the
> > same project and achieve similar goals, but it isn't necessary.
>
> Please don't do this, it just makes it harder to merge things since it
> makes it look like there's cross tree merges needed when that's not the
> case, complicating merging, and puts the entire series in everyone's
> inbox which makes things more noisy.
How should I proceed with this series, in your opinion?
I see potential advantages (less of the issues you describe) and
disadvantages (somewhat harder to track patches) of splitting it up
before sending v3.
(Outside of this series, the conclusion is clear and simple)
J. Neuschäfer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists