Re: [PATCH v9 1/7] phy: can-transceiver: rename temporary helper function to avoid conflict

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 12:43:48PM +0000, Josua Mayer wrote:
> It would help immensely if there was a way to get the patches renaming
> driver-local conflicting helper-functions very early, before anything else.
> 
> Would this sort of patch be acceptable in linux-next now, so it can make
> it into v7.0-rc1?
> 
> If not then that mini-patchset would be the first one I shall submit after
> v7.0-rc1 is released.

v7.0-rc1 was already tagged as commit 6de23f81a5e08be8fbf5e8d7e9febc72a5b5f27f.

Additionally, patches are not accepted directly *in* linux-next. They
are accepted in subsystem trees (linux-phy, mmc, etc) which are then
integrated all together in linux-next.

> 
> Then I can treat the actual implementation of the devm_mux_* helpers
> as a second standalone patch-set.
> 
> And finally patching all drivers with local helpers to use the new global ones
> can be patch-set number 3.
> 
> Any opinions on this?

>From linux-phy perspective, I think in this particular case the following
would help:
- submit the patches at the beginning of the development cycle (i.e.
  now) while the subsystem trees didn't diverge too much
- submit the patch series *in full* (to get build testing of the later
  devm_mux_state_get_optional() introduction too, even if that is not
  for linux-phy)
- keep all patches pertaining to linux-phy (the mini-patchset) together
  and close to the beginning of the series, so they can be picked
  without other dependencies
- be clear in the cover letter if you require a stable tag for the
  linux-phy patches to be picked in other trees. You seem to be in the
  best position to be aware of all dependencies.

I don't know what is the exact status with the MULTIPLEXER SUBSYSTEM
which is marked as Odd Fixes and doesn't have appear to have a subsystem
tree. I have no recommendation there.