[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad6e347b-a25b-5309-2a6a-8fd3faba256c@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:14:11 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: 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
On 24/02/2022 11:06, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> 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 ;-)
>
The bindings patch should not be split more, but itself can be taken
alone. DTS patches can go via SoC maintainer trees.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists