[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2890ae71-aed0-451d-a7fb-7db30c30b72b@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 12:53:30 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Raul Rangel <rrangel@...omium.org>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
Paul Barker <paul.barker@...cloud.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] arm: arm64: dts: Enable cros-ec-spi as wake source
On 12/14/23 11:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 13/12/23 19:00, Mark Hasemeyer ha scritto:
>> The cros_ec driver currently assumes that cros-ec-spi compatible device
>> nodes are a wakeup-source even though the wakeup-source property is not
>> defined.
>>
>> Add the wakeup-source property to all cros-ec-spi compatible device
>> nodes to match expected behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hasemeyer <markhas@...omium.org>
>
> I received only patch [2/6] - please send the entire series to the relevant
> maintainers, as otherwise it's difficult to understand what's going on.
>
> As for this patch alone:
> 1. arch/arm stuff goes to a different commit
> 2. I would prefer if you split per-arch and per-SoC.
+1, otherwise *somebody* will get merge conflicts that - even
if trivial - take additional time to resolve :(
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists