Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Herbert Xu wrote:

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:29:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

I see that your tree is 8 days old, so this may have been resolved
already, but would you be kind enough to ensure you remove the 6th
(ARM) patch from your repo please?  I wouldn't want it to cause
conflicts and for Maxime and yourself to get shouted at by Linus.

I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested.  Without
the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless.  So
I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five
which add the driver.

That's crazy talk.  If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule
there would be chaos.  We'd either need to send pull-requests to each
other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of
merge conflicts would ensue at merge time.

The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't
a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their
respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with
us as maintainers.  Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou
shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems
without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this
though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request".

Of course if Linus wants me to revert patch 6 in case of any
potential conflicts with Maxime's tree I'll do that.  Linus?

Why bother Linus?  The whole purpose of this is to _not_ pi$$ him
off.  This stuff is common sense.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog