On 05. 11. 18 14:20, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:06:11PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> I don't think that driver will be broken. You can build them, use them >> on out of tree HW. And when this patch is merged to mainline it will be >> enabled for xilinx soc. > > But if the DT entries are missing, the driver won't load, would it? you don't have that HW anyway. > >> TBH I can't see any reason to do merges but if you want to do that way >> we can also do it. > > The reason is because there's a separate DT tree and all those arm > drivers need DT. > > I have already acked EDAC patches to go through other trees too, FWIW. I looked at v10 and I can't see your ack there. Can you please give me a link? I see Rob's reviewed by in v10 2/6 > Which is not optimal either if someone sends fixes ontop but I cannot > apply them yet because the dependent patches are in a different tree. > > So yes, there are at least two good reasons for merging a shared branch. I have not a problem with that. I can simply take patch (process via arm-soc) with pointing to reviewed binding doc and you will take the rest when this is in arm-soc tree. Thanks, Michal
