Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V soc fixes for v7.0-rc1

["Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026, at 10:51, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 10:41 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> There's no dependency of course, I'll split it out.
>> Ordinarily I would always split them, but I'd swear I was told at one
>> point that since fixes were on one branch in the soc tree that it was
>> okay for me to do the same. In this case I did it on one branch to be
>> less work to get onto a potential fixes PR that went out before -rc1.
>
> You might be right about that, I'm learning myself.
>
> Perhaps you know more about this process than me,
> despite me being one of the SoC maintainers now :P
>
> Let's see what the others say.

The pull requests for -next have to be split because they go
to torvalds as separate branches, but for bug fixes, I never
made this a rule so far.

I just merged Conor's PR before I saw this thread, and decided
not to undo the merge because it's fine for the current way we
send the upstream PRs.

We could consider changing the process though and having two
separate fixes branches for DT and non-DT changes, as I tend
to have to write two descriptions for one tag anyway, and
it would be more natural to send the fixes separately.

There are already some maintainers that send split fixes PRs
anyway, but we'd have to make sure to communicate it to everyone
before we make it a general requirement.

      Arnd