On 02/04/2026 18:36, Alexander Koskovich wrote: >>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ >>>> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,milos-dispcc.h> >>>> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,milos-gcc.h> >>>> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,milos-gpucc.h> >>>> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,kaanapali-gxclkctl.h> >>> >>> Why? My next from 27th Match does not have Milos in that binding. Was it >>> added? It's worth mentioning in commit msg. >>> >> >> Now I checked in the cover letter - that patch was rejected. You cannot >> depend on rejected patch and still claim that this patchset is ready for >> merging. This patchset should be somehow marked that it depends on stuff >> which is wrong, usually I recommend marking it as RFC with explanation >> in cover letter WHY this is RFC (because it cannot be merged). > > I don't see where the gxclkctl milos patch was rejected, there were some minor > comments that need to be addressed in a v2 though, is that what you mean by it > being rejected?
There is no v2, so that patch at that time could not go in, could not be accepted, could not be used as a working dependency. > > Will just mark v2 of this series as RFC. Best regards, Krzysztof
