Re: [PATCH V7 10/10] ARM64: dts: imx7ulp: update usb compatible

[Shawn Guo]

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 9:07 AM Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:10:58AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:40:13AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:18:43AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > Hi Shawn,
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 10/10] ARM64: dts: imx7ulp: update usb compatible
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 01:25:04PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Per binding doc, update the compatible
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > ARM: dts: imx7ulp: ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixed it up and applied all DTS patches.
> > > > [Peng Fan]
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the fix. But I think Greg already applied the patchset.
> > >
> > > Okay, I will drop them from my tree, but ...
> > >
> > > Greg,
> > >
> > > May I suggest a couple of things on the future process?
> > >
> > > - Could you leave i.MX DTS patches to me, so that we can avoid potential
> > >   merge conflicts?
> >
> > How am I supposed to know this?
>
> Aren't we using patch prefix to tell the target subsystem?
>
> > Our tools take the whole patch series,
> > not individual ones.  If someone wants patches to go through different
> > trees, then they need to submit them as different patch series,
> > otherwise it makes no sense.
>
> It's a quite common practice that people send a series containing
> multiple patches targeting different subsystems, as that's what
> reviewers have been asking for sake of completeness.  So we are asking
> for two opposite things from what I can see.

Never mind.  I think I will just start pushing people to send DTS
changes as separate patchset.

Shawn