[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a81f47e0-1778-a6ac-4cd8-634502661d6f@xilinx.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:32:55 +0100
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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 05. 11. 18 14:20, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?
you don't have that HW anyway.
>
>> 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.
I looked at v10 and I can't see your ack there. Can you please give me a
link?
I see Rob's reviewed by in v10 2/6
> 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.
I have not a problem with that. I can simply take patch (process via
arm-soc) with pointing to reviewed binding doc and you will take the
rest when this is in arm-soc tree.
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists