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 minimi
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
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:28:53 +0100, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:
> 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 merge
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:28:53 +0100, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:
> 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.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:30 AM Jiri Slaby (SUSE) 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
On 19. 03. 25, 11:21, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
I am all to support the idea, but in some cases I would think of a bit
more work to be done to get rid of the of_fwnode_handle(np) in favour
of dev_fwnode(dev). Note, this is based on a brief look, I haven't any
example at hand right now.
Aah, that's
