Hi,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:28 AM Johan Hovold johan@kernel.org wrote:
I guess I have a different opinion on the matter. I often end up cherry-picking stuff to older branches and I generally assume that it's relatively safe to pick the beginning of a series without picking later patches because I assume everyone has a goal of bisectability. This breaks that assumption. IMO splitting up the Qualcomm Bluetooth patch into two patches doesn't help enough with clarity to justify.
I did that in v2 because then the two patches had to be split to facilitate backporting as wcn3991 support was added later.
But the big issue here is taking the patches through different trees. If Bjorn could ack the DT patch so that everything goes through the Bluetooth tree, then I guess I can reorder the DT patch and squash the two driver patches.
But waiting several weeks just to make sure that the DT patch hits mainline (and the binding patch before that?) before the driver fixes can go in just does not seem worth it to me.
Personally, I don't care quite as much about them going through the same tree. It'd be nice, but I agree with you that it's probably not worth the hassle (though I wouldn't object if Bjorn wanted to Ack the dts) and it's fine with me if the patches "meet up" in mainline. In my case, though, I could imagine following the "Link" tag in the patches and arriving at the mailing list post. That's where I'd go back and look to see the order which I should apply the patches safely. ...and I'd prefer that it shows an order that lets things apply safely.
-Doug