Remi Pommarel <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 08:09:47PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Stefan Wahren <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Hi Remi, >> > >> > Am 07.12.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Remi Pommarel: >> >> Hi Stefan, >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 10:16:25PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote: >> >>> Hi Remi, >> >>> >> >>> please send this patch to [email protected]. >> >> >> >> Ok, just to be sure I understand the process here. I should resend a new >> >> version of the whole patchset including the devicetree mailing list as >> >> recipent. Then the first 3 patches will eventually get pushed by a clock >> >> subsystem maintainer. And finally this last patch will be pushed by a >> >> devicetree maintainer. >> >> >> >> Am I right here ? >> > >> > sorry for the confusion. I mean that you send a copy to >> > [email protected] so subscribers have a chance to review. >> > >> > I'm not sure but according to your subject you suggest that this dts >> > patch should go through clock subsystem which isn't optimal. This should >> > be better applied by Stephen or Eric. >> >> It would be applied by me, but that's for me to worry about, not the >> patch submitter. The subject prefix would be "ARM: bcm2835: ", but >> that's trivial for me to fix when applying, not the kind of thing worth >> asking for a respin for. > > Thanks for review. > > I'll submit dt patch to [email protected] for review. Is it better > to submit the whole patchset (patch 1 to 4) to provide some context for the > device tree patch or just this patch alone ?
I think you're fine sending just patch 4 -- the clk-bcm2835.c bugfixes are between us and the clk maintainers, as far as I know. Check scripts/get_maintainer.pl output to see who all should get the CC on it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
