On 10/16/2019 4:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
> I've taken patch 3 in my tty-next tree. The others should probably go
> through an arm-specific tree, right?
Thank you very much, Greg! That was all for the tty tree.
I think that the other patches should go to the following trees:
* git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git:
patches #1 and possibly #4 (as it covers arch/*/boot/dts/);
* git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git:
patches #2, #5 and possibly #4 (as it covers arch/arm64/boot/dts/)
* git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shawnguo/linux.git
possibly patch #4 (as it covers arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-*)
As a general question, would it be any chance to have the device tree
included in v5.4 (along with its compatible documentation and config
definition, without enablement)? That is, only the patches #1, #2 and
#4, because #3 is a cosmetic change and #5 enables the new configs by
default. That would complete a minimal support for S32V234-EVB, together
with the LINFlexD UART driver which was accepted.
>From the development process documentation[1]: "An occasional exception
is made for drivers for previously-unsupported hardware; if they touch
no in-tree code, they cannot cause regressions and should be safe to add
at any time".
I know that it mentions only drivers and not device trees, but from the
history is seems that there have also been dts/dtsi files added outside
of merge windows, such as:
* arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu540-c000.dtsi;
* arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unleashed-a00.dts;
* arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/vexpress-v2f-1xv7-ca53x2.dts;
* arch/xtensa/boot/dts/lx200mx.dts;
* arch/xtensa/boot/dts/kc705.dts;
* arch/xtensa/boot/dts/xtfpga-flash-128m.dtsi;
* arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-beagle-xm-ab.dts;
* arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d3_xplained.dts;
* arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-boneblack.dts;
* arch/powerpc/boot/dts/charon.dts.
I am sorry if my question is inopportune, I am definitely not trying to
rush anyone. I just ask because this has been under review for some
time and all the feedback has been addressed. We would really appreciate
to have this SoC and board supported in the following LTS release if
there are no other issues.
Regards,
Stefan
[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.3/process/2.Process.html
