ChanServ changed the topic of #armlinux to: ARM kernel talk [Upstream kernel, find your vendor forums for questions about their kernels] | https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/armlinux
<tagr>
krzk: was there a particular reason you didn't pick this up? or did it just fall through the cracks
<tagr>
or perhaps you don't like taking pull requests, in which case I could collect all those patches and resend them for you to pick up "manually"
mcoquelin has joined #armlinux
nsaenz has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mcoquelin has quit [Read error: No route to host]
alexels has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.5]
mcoquelin has joined #armlinux
<krzk>
tagr: I think there was misunderstanding. I understood that you will take these patches and send them regular way to SoC folks and the pull request is for me only to avoid conflcits.
<krzk>
tagr: there were no conflicts that time, so I never pulled that in.
<tagr>
ah... I see
<tagr>
the intention had been to take only a subset of the changes into ARM SoC (the dt-bindings headers) because the DT changes depended on them
<tagr>
but the memory controller driver also depends on them, so that's why the dt-bindings subset was also included there
<krzk>
But you still can push such branch to SoC as drivers. Sorry for the confusion... since you still have it, just forward it to Arnd/Olof as next/drivers.
<tagr>
krzk: sorry if that wasn't clear, but the expectation was for you to pull the branch in the PR as well since you manage those patches now
<tagr>
okay, if it's fine with you I'll include that set in my next series of ARM SoC PRs for the Tegra tree
<krzk>
I don't have anything around Tegra MC currently (and nothing in patch queue except the set from Ashish).
<tagr>
okay, I'll keep checking for any conflicts (that branch feeds into linux-next anyway, so we should learn about any conflicts if they appear)
<krzk>
tagr: but why then applying the drivers? I understand that bindings are a dependency, so you apply the bindings and provide me the pull request with bindings. I apply the drivers on top of it and push it out. That's the regular flow. Since you applied drivers, this means you will take care about them.
<krzk>
tagr: above was an answer to >but the expectation was for you to pull the branch in the PR as well since you manage those patches now<
<tagr>
krzk: well, my intention was to make this as easy as possible for you so you wouldn't have to worry about any ordering
mcoquelin has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<tagr>
the result is basically the same, right? whether you apply the driver patches into your tree or pull my branch that has them applied already
<tagr>
krzk: so far I don't have any new dt-bindings header patches at the moment and the ones for v5.18 made it into v5.18-rc1, so alternatively I can also just resend the set of driver patches I have in my local tree
<krzk>
tagr: yeah, the result is the same, only the intention is communicated differently.
<krzk>
tagr: yeah, that would work now :)
<tagr>
okay, I think I'll just do that next week, then
<tagr>
krzk: thanks
<CounterPillow>
I spy, with my little eye, an RK3588 patch series
Amit_T has quit [Quit: Leaving]
torez has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
elastic_dog has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
elastic_dog has joined #armlinux
apritzel has joined #armlinux
cbeznea has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
nsaenz has joined #armlinux
headless has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]