On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 10:48, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Hi Shawn, > > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 08:32, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > > > > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > > > > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > > > > > > Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any > > > issue like build breakage or regression on either tree? Otherwise, I do > > > not see the series needs to go in through a single tree. > > > > > > Shawn > > > > > > > No, the point is that I've made some changes in the device tree > > bindings validation in the driver, which make the driver without those > > changes incompatible with the bindings themselves that I'm > > introducing. So I would like the driver to be operational on the > > actual commit that introduces the bindings, at least in your tree. I > > don't expect merge conflicts to occur in that area of the code. > > The dt-bindings patch is supposed to go through subsystem tree together > with driver changes by nature. That said, patch #1 and #2 are for > David, and I will pick up the rest (DTS ones). > > Shawn Ok, any further comments on the series or should I respin after your feedback regarding the commit message prefix and the status = "disabled" ordering? -Vladimir
