Re: [PATCH 2/3] spi: ppc4xx: Fix fallout from rename in struct spi_bitbang

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:45:05PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:50:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:23:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> > BTW the issue here is that you sent this without comment in the middle
> > of a series of fixes the other two of which *do* apply to mainline,
> > ideally it would have just been sent separately since it needs to go
> > separately but if you *are* going to send a single series like this
> > things that are -next only should go after any fixes that are for
> > mainline.

> I expected that adding Fixes lines is enough documentation but I agree
> that in retrospect it would have been a good idea to mention the
> expected target branch for each patch. I'm willing to take half of the

The Fixes would have done the right thing if the ordering was what I
expected or if it had been sent separately - basically I wasn't
expecting to find -next material after a mainline fix in the series so
I'll not check back further in the series. 

> blame you assigned me as in retrospect double checking the Fixes lines
> or doing a compile test of the ppc4xx driver would also have been a good
> idea for you as maintainer applying the patches. Sorry for my

I have a standard set of checks I do but as you pointed out the driver
doesn't even build with a PowerPC defconfig, let alone cross
architecture - at some point it gets to be the same situation as with
if drivers for hardware I don't have works.  The coverage in CI systems
is generally good enough for long tail configs like this, but AFAICT
even 0day didn't notice here.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature