On 5/26/25 07:06, Matthias Brugger wrote:
On 12/05/2025 18:42, Andrea della Porta wrote:
Hi Florian,
On 15:02 Mon 12 May , Florian Fainelli wrote:
On May 7, 2025 5:01:05 PM GMT+02:00, Andrea della Porta
<andrea.porta@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Florian, to accept the patches, what would work best for you?
1) Send only the relevant updated patches (maybe as an entirely new
patchset with
only those specific patches)
Only the updated patches work for me. I don't think there is that
much coupling between the DT changes and the non-DT changes (other
than without DT entries nothing is activated)
It's a little bit more involved than that:
- Patch 7 (misc driver) depends on 6 (RP1 common dts) which in turn
depends on 1 (clock binding header). Should be taken by Greg.
Greg gave an Acked-by so I think Florian is good to take that patch.
Which leaves us to the clock patches (driver + dt-bindings).
- Patch 9 and 10 (board dts) depends on 6 (RP1 common dts) which again
depends on 1 (clock binding header). Should be taken by Florian.
- Patch 4 (clock driver) depends on 1 (clock binding header) and
should be taken by Stephen.
Steven reviewed the patches (driver + dt-binding) so he is waiting for a
new version which addresses the review. He offered to either take them
and provide a branch that Florian can merge into his branch or provide a
Acked-by tag.
@Florian what would you prefer?
I am fine either way, it's definitively simpler if I can take all of the
patches in the respective Broadcom ARM SoC branches, but pulling a
branch from another maintainer's tree works just as well.
Andrea, sorry to ask you this, can you post a v10 and we aim to get that
version applied?
Thanks!
--
Florian
