On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:52:17AM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Hello Mani,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 10:33:59AM +0100, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 May 2025 00:07:07 +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> > > 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool.
> > > 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check.
> > > 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check.
> > >
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > [1/3] PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool
> > commit: f46bfb1d3c6a601caad90eb3c11a1e1e17cccb1a
> > [2/3] PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check
> > commit: 0a9d6a3d0fd1650b9ee00bc8150828e19cadaf23
> > [3/3] PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check
> > commit: 1a176b25f5d6f00c6c44729c006379b9a6dbc703
> >
>
> This was all applied to the dw-rockchip branch.
>
> Was that intentional?
Yes it was.
>
> My guess is that perhaps you thought that
> "PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool"
> was going to conflict with Hans's other commit:
> 5e5a3bf48eed ("PCI: dw-rockchip: Use rockchip_pcie_link_up() to check link
> up instead of open coding")
>
> but at least from looking at the diff, they don't seem to touch the same
> lines, but perhaps you got a conflict anyway?
>
I think I got a conflict and I saw that the cover letter mentioned dw-rockchip
as a dependency, so I applied to that branch.
>
>
> mobiveil and cadence patches seem unrelated to dw-rockchip
> (unrelated to DWC even).
>
> If it was intentional, all is good, but perhaps the branch
> should have a more generic name, rather than dw-rockchip,
> especially now when the reset-slot and qcom-reset slot patches
> are also on the same branch.
>
Yeah, I agree. Since there are 3 series on this branch, we need to pick a smart
name ;) I will do so. Thanks!
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
