[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhdvnCnXbzFz63ys@google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:44:28 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, 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 Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.
So in answer to Heiko's question, either Thierry, Rob or I can take
the patch. I'm not overly fussed which. If I am to take it, I need
Thierry's go-ahead and info on whether he requires a PR or not.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists