[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46372c17-d317-4477-9635-36564c73cc6a@rock-chips.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 18:09:24 +0800
From: Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
Cc: heiko@...ech.de, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] dt-bindings: pwm: rockchip: Add
rockchip,rk3562-pwm
Hi Uwe,
Thanks very much for your review.
On 2024/12/27 15:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:49:14PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
>> Add rockchip,rk3562-pwm compatible string.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang<kever.yang@...k-chips.com>
> What is your merge plan here? From my POV merging the pwm update via my
> pwm tree would be the easiest. But if you want to let it go via (say)
> arm-soc to have it all in a single tree soon and then base new
> development on top of that, that would be fine for me, too.
I send this in a patch set for a new soc and board because there is
no driver change needed, and I think it would be more clear for the new soc
support. It will be great if maintainers like you can pick the patches
for the module which I guess is preferred way in the kernel maintain rule?
Or else I have to follow the comments fromKrzysztof to send patches one
by one separately.
Thanks,
- Kever
> In the former case, please tell me. In the latter case:
>
> Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König<ukleinek@...nel.org>
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists