[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83939b6b-0188-9cb7-c4fc-624f13437a48@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 15:37:29 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-imx@....com" <linux-imx@....com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/17] arm64: dts: freescale: apalis-imx8: fix
reserved-memory node names
On 18/01/2023 15:36, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 15:02 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/01/2023 08:26, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>> From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>
>>>
>>> Fix reserved-memory node names using dashes rather than underscores.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - New patch fixing reserved-memory node names.
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-apalis-v1.1.dtsi | 12 ++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-apalis-v1.1.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-
>>> apalis-v1.1.dtsi
>>> index 70c00b92cb05..6217e0a48f96 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-apalis-v1.1.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8-apalis-v1.1.dtsi
>>> @@ -133,17 +133,17 @@ reserved-memory {
>>> #size-cells = <2>;
>>> ranges;
>>>
>>> - decoder_boot: decoder_boot@...00000 {
>>> + decoder_boot: decoder-boot@...00000 {
>>
>> This is ridiculous. You just added it! If we consider original code as
>> wrong, then you intentionally added wrong code just to fix it.
>>
>> No, that's not the way how it should be developed.
>
> Shawn asked me to ease the review process which is exactly what I did.
Any reason why b4 diff cannot be used? If your patchset fails b4
auto-detection of version, this should be fixed instead of fake split.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists