Hi! > >>>> Given this one seems to have not really been finished, it's probably > >>>> okay to make changes in this case. Still, it would be good to see > >>>> patches structured so that it's obvious we're breaking things. But how > >>>> the patches are structured doesn't matter until there's some agreement > >>>> on the end result. > >>> > >>> OK, so if I'm getting it right, the correct patch structure in this case > >>> means that changes removing bindings from MFD and moving them along > >>> with the modifications to the LED subsystem should be placed in a single > >>> patch. > >>> > >>> Dan, could you please arrange the next patch set version accordingly? > >> > >> Yes I can squash the DT bindings patches and call it a "move and modify" > > > > You can do move without problems. But if you plan to modify them, > > please try to change as little as possible, make it separate patch and > > explain why new version is better than old one. > > > > I have been thinking of how to do this. Since the 2 devices are part of the current > binding there really is not a way to move them. Since there are still MFD capable > devices available. > > I would still need to remove the current active binding and create a new binding in the LED > bindings directory. > > I would have to remove and create in the same patch. Yeah, and this all is a sign that you should just keep the current binding, and make your code use it, see? You are free to use Sebastian's updated binding. It has "suggested by: Rob" or something like that on it, so it should be fine. You can add note to bindings/leds pointing to mfd binding. Now... this is what I've suggested before. If you don't agree, you may want to contact Tony Lindgren, IIRC he works for TI, too, and might be willing to help. Thank you, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
