[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZpfDCStcxnec712U@ryzen.lan>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:11:37 +0200
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
To: Rayyan Ansari <rayyan.ansari@...aro.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: qcom: {a,i}pq8064: correct clock-names in
sata node
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:05:09AM +0100, Rayyan Ansari wrote:
>
> Hi Niklas,
>
> Yes, this patch does not depend on the following two patches, I just
> thought that sending this as a series would make sense given that
> patches 2-3 would surface this error (as we can run dtbs_check against
> yaml bindings but not text bindings).
Usually, DT maintainers prefer for DT bindings to go via subsystem trees
(in this case libata).
I guess DT maintainers could have picked the whole series, as they do
occasionally, but they seem to want to avoid this as much as possible.
In this case, considering that the DTS change (patch 1/3) is a strict fix,
I think that it should be merged ASAP (target 6.11 instead of 6.12).
We will queue the DT binding changes for 6.12.
When also taking into consideration that the DT bindings and DTS changes
have different trees, splitting the series was probably the right move.
Kind regards,
Niklas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists