Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Mediatek MT8183 clock and scpsys support

From: Weiyi Lu
Date: Mon Feb 25 2019 - 23:01:02 EST

On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24)
> >
> >
> > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk
> > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes
> > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this
> > > upcoming merge window.
> > >
> >
> > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to
> > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape.
> Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch
> series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on
> something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it.

Hi Stephen,

Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and
others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock
patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series
right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into
If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll
fix them and send v5 only for clock.

> >
> > Do you prefer to get pull requests for clock patches? I wasn't aware of that.
> > But if you prefer that, we can find someone who prepares every merge window a
> > pull request.
> >
> I don't really care one way or the other about pull requests vs.
> manually applying patches. It helps if someone wants to pick the patches
> up and send them along when there are complex dependencies between the
> clk patches and dts bits or something like that. It also helps if
> there's someone else with knowledge of the particular SoC saying "these
> are good, please pull these patches". Subsystem maintainers obviously
> aren't experts in all SoCs and their various quirks, plus datasheets
> aren't always so widely available, so sharing the load with SoC
> maintainers who are familiar with the hardware usually makes a lot of
> sense.
> Otherwise, if you just want to put your "Reviewed-by" tag on any patches
> that look good and are sane then I'll quickly understand that these
> patches are good and that I should pick them up into the clk tree from
> the list. Just please communicate one way or the other about patches
> that you care about because it helps to know if they've gotten attention
> or not.