Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] i2c: designware: Group all DesignWare drivers under a single option

[Andi Shyti]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 02:04:05PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 02:21:32PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 12:22:22PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:25:06PM GMT, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > > There are quite a few drivers and options for the DesignWare
> > > > > I2C adapter in the Kconfig. Grouping all of them under the
> > > > > I2C_DESIGNWARE_CORE. That makes the menuconfig a bit more
> > > > > easier to understand.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your patch, I can take this only after the other
> > > > patches have been taken in.
> > > 
> > > I assume then that you're expecting the prereqs to go through the
> > > various arch trees? Is this not trivial enough that you could chuck it
> > > on a dedicated branch in your tree and if, for some reason, there's a
> > > non-trivial conflict the affected could pull it in?
> > 
> > Thanks for your advice: considering that cross-domain patches are
> > difficult to handle, I appreciate any suggestion on how to deal
> > with them :-)
> 
> It's also helpful if the submitter of a series proposes what path
> patches should take upstream. I find that people all look at something
> like this and see "someone else's problem" written all over it, and
> would be perfectly happy to accept a proposal from a submitter that it
> all goes via I2C.
> 
> > Are you suggesting to set these up in a different branch and send
> > a pull request out of that branch?
> 
> What I meant was put them in a dedicated branch (so probably on top of
> -rc1 or similar) and merge that branch into your for-next branch. If
> someone then was to run into a non-trivial conflict you could tag the
> dedicated branch and they could pull it into their tree.
> 
> > I don't want here to step into other people branches if they
> > don't ack or express any thought.
> 
> Sure, I wouldn't either, but it far from abnormal for driver subsystem
> maintainer to take these sort of rename/dependency addition patches and
> the normal path for 3 of the 5 architectures affected here is via Arnd
> and I figure there's a low probability of the maintainers of those
> architectures having their feels hurt.

Thanks Conor! I will take it into i2c, then. In any case, Stephen
will check if there will be duplicates.

Thanks,
Andi