[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181105132007.GB7937@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:20:07 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Manish Narani <manish.narani@...inx.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, mchehab@...nel.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
sudeep.holla@....com, leoyang.li@....com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/6] arm64: zynqmp: Add DDRC node
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:06:11PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> I don't think that driver will be broken. You can build them, use them
> on out of tree HW. And when this patch is merged to mainline it will be
> enabled for xilinx soc.
But if the DT entries are missing, the driver won't load, would it?
> TBH I can't see any reason to do merges but if you want to do that way
> we can also do it.
The reason is because there's a separate DT tree and all those arm
drivers need DT.
I have already acked EDAC patches to go through other trees too, FWIW.
Which is not optimal either if someone sends fixes ontop but I cannot
apply them yet because the dependent patches are in a different tree.
So yes, there are at least two good reasons for merging a shared branch.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists