Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Add AYN QCS8550 Devices

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 23/03/2026 17:03, Aaron Kling wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As I have mentioned multiple times, the vendor patch is separate
>>>
>>> And as I answered to you already twice...
>>>
>>>> because I have multiple open series that depend on the vendor and
>>>> there's no telling which one will be picked up first.
>>>
>>> ...no one will pick up vendor prefix thus your goal will not be
>>> achieved. Nothing in vendor prefix patch explains how should take it to
>>> solve it. People do not take random patches, so if you wanted Rob to
>>> take it, you should have been explicit.
> 
> You told me on multiple tegra series to split things and list merge
> dependencies in the cover letter. I have listed in this cover letter
> that the vendor patch must be merged before anything from this series
> is picked up. Why is this any different from what you kept telling me
> before? Whichever binding patch gets cleared for merge first will

Because these patches in tegra will be picked up. Vendor prefix won't.
Let's reverse the problem - who should pick up such vendor prefix patch
without user and explanation, and why anyone should do it?

> trigger the dependency of merging the vendor patch. And as long as a
> message is generated on that patch that it has been picked up, other
> series with that dependency would not cause a duplicate.
> 
> What would the alternative be? Say the vendor patch gets added to this
> series. Then I would have a driver series that would have to list this

Could be. I gave you other alternative - "you should have been explicit".

> as a b4 dep for checks to continue to pass. Making a dt series that is
> otherwise unrelated a requirement for that driver to be merged. That
> seems even worse. Or much worse, I would be unable to submit such
> drivers at all until this has been picked up.
> 
> Aaron


Best regards,
Krzysztof