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.

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
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.