On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:55 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:46 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/arizona.txt | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > Applied. > > > > > > Probably won't do any harm in this instance, but it's usually better > > > for MFD binding changes to go through the MFD tree to avoid > > > merge-conflicts. > > > > It had been sitting there for a while, so I picked it up. Plus if we > > A little over a week is not 'a while'. :) You're right. Probably should have waited 2 weeks. Developers shouldn't have to wait longer than that for a response (according to the chief penguin). > > have conflicts within a binding (other than tree wide clean ups I do), > > that's not a good sign that the binding is changing. > > Not sure I understand this. If there are multiple sets of changes to a single binding within 1 release cycle (more than 1 really IMO), then that is a problem in and of itself. We may want drivers enhanced feature by feature, but I don't want bindings to. Bindings shouldn't be evolving. Maybe sometimes different people add different things, but then they need to work out the dependencies and conflicts, not you or me. Rob
