[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffafbbf6-3049-ec14-da24-18b6f1b4d147@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:49:39 +0100
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
To: Roger Lu <roger.lu@...iatek.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...gle.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Fan Chen <fan.chen@...iatek.com>,
HenryC Chen <HenryC.Chen@...iatek.com>,
Xiaoqing Liu <Xiaoqing.Liu@...iatek.com>,
Charles Yang <Charles.Yang@...iatek.com>,
Angus Lin <Angus.Lin@...iatek.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 7/8] arm64: dts: mt8192: add svs device information
Il 24/01/22 11:48, Roger Lu ha scritto:
> Hi AngeloGioacchino,
>
> On Fri, 2022-01-07 at 15:33 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 07/01/22 10:51, Roger Lu ha scritto:
>>> Add compitable/reg/irq/clock/efuse/reset setting in svs node.
>>
>> Typo: compitable => compatible
>> .. also, you're not only adding the svs node, but also efuse: please add that
>> information in the commit description.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Lu <roger.lu@...iatek.com>
>>
>> This patch seems to not apply on top of the current linux-next, can you please
>> rebase it? That would resolve issues with this series and would be picked
>> sooner.
>>
>> Apart from that...
>
> Sorry to make you confuse. After having discussion internally, we'll submit
> another complete mt8192.dtsi patch including this svs node. Therefore, I'll drop
> this path from svs patchset in order not to make the reviewer confuse. Thanks
> for the comments a lot.
>
Yes that decision looks good to me, as this allows different maintainers
to apply patches on a per-subsystem basis.
Thanks!
Regards,
Angelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists