Re: [PATCH 3/4] mfd: ti-lmu: Remove LM3532 backlight driver references

[Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com>]

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