Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] backlight: rt4831: Adds DT binding document for Richtek RT4831 backlight

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, Daniel Thompson wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:40:55PM +0800, ChiYuan Huang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> 於 2020年12月14日 週一 下午5:59寫道：
> > >
> > > Hi CY
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 12:33:43AM +0800, cy_huang wrote:
> > > > From: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Adds DT binding document for Richtek RT4831 backlight.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: ChiYuan Huang <cy_huang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch got keyword filtered and brought to my attention
> > > but the rest of the series did not.
> > >
> > > If it was a backlight patch series you need to send it To: the
> > > all the backlight maintainers.
> > >
> > Yes, I'm waiting for mfd reviewing.
> > Due to mfd patch, I need to add backlight dt-binding patch prior to
> > backlight source code.
> > Or autobuild robot will said mfd dt-binding build fail from Rob.
> > That's why I send the backlight dt-binding prior to the source code.
> > 
> > I still have backlight/regulator source code patch after mfd reviewing.
> > Do you want me to send all the patches without waiting for mfd reviewing?
> 
> To some extent it's up to you.
> 
> I think I would have shared all the pieces at once (although not it Lee,
> as mfd maintainer, had suggested otherwise).

You should not need to concern yourself with patch ordering outside
of the realms of the set i.e. [PATCH 1/x], [PATCH 2/x], etc.

If you just send the whole patch set and you do not specify otherwise,
it will be applied, in order, as a set.

Sending subsystem patches without the correct maintainers as recipients
is bad form.  Many of us have filters on, so this tactic will seldom
work in any case.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog