[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d245dbf3-65e7-b6c6-4bd1-b384ce47802c@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:26:51 +0100
From: Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Tristram Ha <Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] net: dsa: ksz: Add reset GPIO handling
On 12/08/2018 12:11 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> This actually is an individual patch, it doesn't depend on anything.
>> Or do you mean a series with the DT documentation change ?
>
> Yes, i mean together with the DT documentation change. Those two
> belong together, they are one functional change.
Fine
> Part of this is also to do with scalability. It takes less effort to
> merge one patchset of two patches, as two individual patches. The
> truth is, developer time is cheap, maintainer time is expensive
This is _not_ fine and I am actually offended by this statement.
The way I read this is that maintainer time has more value than
developer time, which justifies spending the developer time by
maintainers without having any appreciation for it. I hope I am
misreading your statement ?
>, so
> the process is optimized towards making the maintainers life easy.
>
> So sometimes you do combine orthogonal changes together into one
> patchset, if there is a high purpose, eg. adding support for a new
> device on a new board. However, given the situation of two overlapping
> patchsets, it might be better to submit smaller patchsets.
>
> Andrew
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
Powered by blists - more mailing lists