[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1817486.VeUe9BSz9F@phil>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:06:30 +0100
From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2022, 11:02:48 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>
> > Hi Lee,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > > Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> > > > the old name in bindings as deprecated.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> >
> > what is your expectation regarding this patch?
> >
> > Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through
> > some other tree?
> >
> > The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old
> > node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory
> > this patch should be able to be applied on its own without
> > causing defects.
>
> In an ideal world, it would be broken up and I would take the MFD
> part. Is that possible or are there dependencies?
That is also what Krzysztof had in mind - see his reply to patch4.
Binding going through the MFD tree and soc maintainers applying
the individual dts patches.
As written the binding change is backward compatible, so no harm.
I was just confused by the "Acked-by" and wanted to clarify how you
see it ;-)
Heiko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists