Hi Krzysztof,

The dt-bindings patch was merged earlier in v3 series (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/175664688891.195158.13270877080433356384.b4-ty@linaro.org/ on 31st August)
into respective maintainer repo. 
Then I have been asked to drop the applied v3 patches and send rebased v4 series (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/15508cb4-843c-42d1-8854-5eabd79ca0df@kernel.org/)

Since the 4 patches from v3 series has been already merged, I have not the mentioned dependency while sending remaining v4 patches considering
It is going to same maintainer repo and it will be applied in sequence.

For future patches (like artpec-9), I will mention the dependency even it is merged in same repo.

Thanks,
Ravi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Sent: 02 October 2025 12:10
> To: Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@samsung.com>
> Cc: jesper.nilsson@axis.com; mturquette@baylibre.com; sboyd@kernel.org; robh@kernel.org; krzk+dt@kernel.org;
> conor+dt@kernel.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com; cw00.choi@samsung.com; alim.akhtar@samsung.com; linus.walleij@linaro.org;
> tomasz.figa@gmail.com; catalin.marinas@arm.com; will@kernel.org; arnd@arndb.de; ksk4725@coasia.com; kenkim@coasia.com;
> pjsin865@coasia.com; gwk1013@coasia.com; hgkim05@coasia.com; mingyoungbo@coasia.com; smn1196@coasia.com;
> shradha.t@samsung.com; inbaraj.e@samsung.com; swathi.ks@samsung.com; hrishikesh.d@samsung.com;
> dj76.yang@samsung.com; hypmean.kim@samsung.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@axis.com; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Add support for the Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC
> 
> On Mon, 1 Sept 2025 at 14:42, Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add basic support for the Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC which contains
> > quad-core Cortex-A53 CPU and other several IPs. This SoC is an
> > Axis-designed chipset used in surveillance camera products such as
> > the AXIS Q1656-LE and AXIS Q3538-LVE.
> >
> > This ARTPEC-8 SoC has a variety of Samsung-specific IP blocks and
> > Axis-specific IP blocks and SoC is manufactured by Samsung Foundry.
> >
> > List of Samsung-provided IPs:
> > - UART
> > - Ethernet (Vendor: Synopsys)
> > - SDIO
> > - SPI
> > - HSI2C
> > - I2S
> > - CMU (Clock Management Unit)
> > - Pinctrl (GPIO)
> > - PCIe (Vendor: Synopsys)
> > - USB (Vendor: Synopsys)
> >
> > List of Axis-provided IPs:
> > - VIP (Image Sensor Processing IP)
> > - VPP (Video Post Processing)
> > - GPU
> > - CDC (Video Encoder)
> >
> > This patch series includes below changes:
> > - CMU (Clock Management Unit) driver and its bindings
> > - GPIO pinctrl configuration and its bindings
> > - Basic Device Tree for ARTPEC-8 SoC and boards
> >
> 
> Pretty useless cover letter since it doesn't say the damn most
> important thing : dependency!
> 
> So this went unnoticed and now mainline (Linus tree) is affected. See
> Linus rant on soc pull request
> 
> I'm very disappointed, actually mostly on me that I picked this up.
> Your future patches, need to improve quality and probably you need to
> go back to how Git works and how maintainer trees are organized. Read
> carefully, really carefully please maintainer profile .
> 
> I'll be putting artpec 9 on hold, till you confirm what was wrong here
> and how are you going to fix it in the future.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 14:45, Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> The dt-bindings patch was merged earlier in v3 series (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/175664688891.195158.13270877080433356384.b4-ty@linaro.org/ on 31st August)
> into respective maintainer repo.
> Then I have been asked to drop the applied v3 patches and send rebased v4 series (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/15508cb4-843c-42d1-8854-5eabd79ca0df@kernel.org/)
>
> Since the 4 patches from v3 series has been already merged, I have not the mentioned dependency while sending remaining v4 patches considering
> It is going to same maintainer repo and it will be applied in sequence.
>
> For future patches (like artpec-9), I will mention the dependency even it is merged in same repo.
>

I know what happened, so no need to explain that. Single maintainer
repo doesn't matter, it's irrelevant and you mentioning it means you
didn't read the maintainer soc profiles I asked. You still don't get
the problem about what happened, at least judging by above expansion,
and this means you will repeat the same mistakes.

I will not proceed with further artpec patches until you really
understand how the process works, through existing documentation.
Please do your homework, to reduce the workload on maintainers.