[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <66cb1441d016551255e0ee2447c1886cb3bf76c9.camel@toradex.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 14:42:36 +0000
From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>
To: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.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 Wed, 2023-01-18 at 15:37 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, I did not know anything about this b4 diff stuff and will avoid such splitting in the future. Thanks!
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists