[rft, PATCH v2 00/36] pinctrl: Clean up and add missed headers
andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com
Sat Oct 15 02:11:33 AEDT 2022
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 01:04:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 11:56 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/10/2022 1:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Currently the header inclusion inside the pinctrl headers seems more arbitrary
> > > than logical. This series is basically out of two parts:
> > > - add missed headers to the pin control drivers / users
> > > - clean up the headers of pin control subsystem
> > >
> > > The idea is to have this series to be pulled after -rc1 by the GPIO and
> > > pin control subsystems, so all new drivers will utilize cleaned up headers
> > > of the pin control.
> > >
> > > Please, review and comment.
> > Did you really need to split this on a per-driver basis as opposed to
> > just a treewide drivers/pinctrl, drivers/media and drivers/gpiolib patch
> > set?
> > 36 patches seems needlessly high when 4 patches could have achieve the
> > same outcome.
> I can combine them if maintainers ask for that, nevertheless for Intel
> pin control and GPIO drivers, which I care more about, I would like to
> leave as separate changes (easy to see in history what was done).
I can now tell why I don't like to combine. While doing a revert (it's not
related to GPIO nor to pin control), it appears that I reverted extra bits
as merge conflict resolution. This is per se is not an issue, but when
I tried to find and reapply that missed piece I can't, because the patch
is combined and Git simply ignores to have
`git cherry-pick _something in the past_` done.
But again, up to maintainers.
With Best Regards,
More information about the openbmc