Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: ti-lmu: Remove LM3532 backlight driver references | From | Jacek Anaszewski <> | Date | Wed, 3 Apr 2019 19:45:08 +0200 |
| |
On 4/3/19 9:57 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > >> On 3/25/19 8:53 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Lee, >>>> >>>> Can we have your ack for this going via LED tree, please? >>> >>> Patch looks okay. >>> >>> You can take it through the LED, but if you do I will need you to send >>> me a pull-request to a minimised immutable branch please. >>> >>> If you cannot do this, I can apply the set and provide the same to >>> you. >>> >>> If you choose the former: >>> >>> Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> >>> >>> Please let me know what you decide >>> >> >> I've been exposing integration branches in the past, but after Linus' >> message [0] I have my doubts now. I wonder if it wouldn't make more >> sense if I just took the patches, and you'd cherry-pick them only in >> case such a need occurs. This way we would avoid this whole merge >> noise, which in an optimistic and very plausible case will not be needed >> at all. >> >> [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/19/1104 > > That email is 2 years old, and does not seem relevant to what we're > trying to achieve. I've only ever had issues when *not* creating > immutable branches for these, cross subsystem scenarios. The > shared branches I create are always minimalist and never change. > > I'm happy to take the patches and create a suitable pull-request for > you if you are uncomfortable with the process. I just need your Ack > to do so. Up to you.
I don't have any problem with the process. The clear gain of cherry picking is more linear history. And the branch can be always created when such a need occurs in linux-next.
That being said, I will send you a pull request once we sort out the problem with obtaining a reference to the backlight node.
-- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
| |