On 06. 05. 25, 15:41, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19 2025 at 10:28, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Hi,
tl;dr if patches are agreed upon, I ask subsys maintainers to take the
respective ones via their trees (as they are split per subsys), so that
the IRQ tree can take only the rest. That would minimize churn/conflicts
during merges.
So. It's rc5 by now and I picked up everything
Good, thanks.
which did not show up in next yet.
Which is the majority -- routing through subsystems didn't work as well
as I anticipated.
I planned to retry with v3 after the next merge window, but you were faster.
V3 contains a switch from nodes to dev_fwnode() in some cases. It
simplifies the code there. This did not get lost, I will send this
separately to maintainers once everything from this series settles in
the tree. I.e. likely after the next merge window.
@Jiri, I fixed up all your subject prefixes as
'irqdomain: subsys: Switch to foo()'
does not make any sense at all. These subsystems have their regular
prefixes and these changes do not justify made up irqdomain special
prefixes at all.
Yes.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
