[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd64faf0-a149-400d-8cb7-244253c917d7@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 23:05:46 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Devi Priya <quic_devipriy@...cinc.com>, agross@...nel.org,
andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, lee@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, thierry.reding@...il.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, trix@...hat.com, baruch@...s.co.il,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, nathan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 0/4] Add PWM support for IPQ chipsets
On 18/10/2023 22:52, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 06:29:30PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/10/2023 18:05, Devi Priya wrote:
>>> Add PWM driver and binding support for IPQ chipsets.
>>> Also, add support for pwm node in ipq6018.
>>>
>>
>> You need to clearly mark dependencies.
>
> This is something I wouldn't blame Devi for. The dependency is not very
> obvious and its kind of normal and expected for a patch series to have
> dependencies. *shrug*
>
>> Next is now broken because of this patchset.
>
> If I understand correctly this affects "only" the dtb check targets,
> right? Is this bad enough that it needs an urgent fix? I would expect it
> doesn't hurt much, am I right here?
>
> I just looked into patch #2 and had a few comments for it.
Check/Tests of bindings (make dt_binding_check) has warnings because of
missing PWM schema.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists