Message ID | 20221228084028.46528-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Qcom: LLCC/EDAC: Fix base address used for LLCC banks | expand |
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 02:10:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Patches 1/17, 2/17 and 3/17 can be merged independently to EDAC tree. Rest of > the patches should be merged to qcom tree due to LLCC dependency. Why make it more complicated than it has to be? How about I review the EDAC bits and once they look ok, whoever takes care of the qcom tree can pick them up too and route the whole pile through there? This way there's no needless dependency between trees... Hmm.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:36:06AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 02:10:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Patches 1/17, 2/17 and 3/17 can be merged independently to EDAC tree. Rest of > > the patches should be merged to qcom tree due to LLCC dependency. > > Why make it more complicated than it has to be? > > How about I review the EDAC bits and once they look ok, whoever takes > care of the qcom tree can pick them up too and route the whole pile > through there? > Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series. > This way there's no needless dependency between trees... > If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not have any issue :) Thanks, Mani > Hmm. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their > tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series. Once some maintainers experience a crazy dependency hell between trees, they would find routing it all through a single tree a lot easier the next time. > If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not > have any issue :) I'm reviewing.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 06:55:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their > > tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series. > > Once some maintainers experience a crazy dependency hell between trees, > they would find routing it all through a single tree a lot easier the > next time. > > > If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not > > have any issue :) > > I'm reviewing. > Ok! I'll wait for your reviews on the rest of the EDAC patches before doing the respin. Thanks, Mani > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 11:00:45PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 06:55:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their > > > tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series. > > > > Once some maintainers experience a crazy dependency hell between trees, > > they would find routing it all through a single tree a lot easier the > > next time. > > > > > If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not > > > have any issue :) > > > > I'm reviewing. > > > > Ok! I'll wait for your reviews on the rest of the EDAC patches before doing the > respin. > Ping! Thanks, Mani > Thanks, > Mani > > > -- > > Regards/Gruss, > > Boris. > > > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette > > -- > மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்