[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0f3ce4f-5676-f5e1-f04f-dd069679b2d3@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 08:35:48 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: timer: sifive,clint: add compatible for
OpenC906
On 22/11/2022 08:18, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 在 2022-11-21星期一的 11:06 +0100,Krzysztof Kozlowski写道:
>> On 21/11/2022 05:17, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>> T-Head OpenC906 is a open-source-licensed fixed-configuration of
>>> C906,
>>> which is now public and able to be integrated.
>>>
>>> Add a compatible for the CLINT shipped as part of OpenC906, which
>>> should
>>> just be ordinary C9xx CLINT.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
>>> index aada6957216c..86703e995e31 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
>>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties:
>>> - const: sifive,clint0
>>> - items:
>>> - enum:
>>> + - thead,openc906-clint
>>> - allwinner,sun20i-d1-clint
>>
>> Add entries sorted alphabetically. This should be squashed with
>> previous
>> patch.
>
> I make it a seperated patch because I think it's a questionable
> approach.
>
> If you think it's okay, I will just squash it and put it as the second
> patch in the next iteration, with adding openc906-plic as the first
> one.
What is a questionable approach? Why commit msg is not saying this?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists