[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b1263cd-7ab9-37ce-a076-4e2268a05b58@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:03:33 +0200
From: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: opensource@...rst.com, john@...ozen.org, sean.wang@...iatek.com,
nelson.chang@...iatek.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux@...linux.org.uk, frank-w@...lic-files.de, sr@...x.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/3] dt-bindings: net: ethernet: Update mt7622
docs and dts to reflect the new phylink API
On 28/08/2019 21:56, David Miller wrote:
> From: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:29:45 +0200
>
>> Thanks for taking this patch. For the next time, please make sure that dts[i]
>> patches are independent from the binding description, as dts[i] should go
>> through my tree. No problem for this round, just saying for the future.
>
> That's not always possible nor reasonable, to be quite honest.
>
Right now no case comes to my mind. What would be a case where this is not
reasonable or possible?
Regards,
Matthias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists