[PATCH v6 2/8] i2c: muxes: add support for tsd,mule-i2c multiplexer

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 12/08/2024 14:21, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> Yep, but to be fair the patchset did not say anything about
>> dependencies. There is absolutely nothing in cover letter, nothing in
>> the patches, so I do not wonder that this mishap happened.
> 
> Still, one shouldn't take DT patches (which are even the last ones in
> this series) until all other patches are at least in -next, or? Yes,
> mistakes happen, so no big deal, but i2c is not to blame IMHO.

No, it's not. It was just a ping. The issue is here not describing
dependency, allowing Guenter to take the patch and not even telling him
that now next has warning. :/ It's like entire weight is on maintainers
and contributors care only about getting their patch inside. Once it is
inside, not my problem anymore... :(


> 
>> Depends whether you rely on being CC-ed here. Existing entries do not
> 
> I don't rely on CC. I rely on patches being on the i2c list.
> 
>> include you, thus you are not cc-ed on maintainers. Peter Rosin is, but
>> it seems Peter does not apply patches. It could be intentional, but then
>> I understand that all pings should go to Peter?
> 
> Once Peter acks, I apply. He is the maintainer. Yet, he is very busy, so
> I also apply when someone else I trust does a review. He is fine with

Sure, that explains, so ping should not really go to you...

> that and might chime in later, if needed. This patch here did not get
> any review, sadly. As I said, resource problem. That being said, these
> patches are somewhere on my todo list if nobody else steps up (what I
> would prefer). But please, don't put pressure on me (or any other
> potential reviewer) just because DT patches ended up upstream too early.


Best regards,
Krzysztof