On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 10/14/20 11:11 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:00:45AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> On 10/14/20 3:14 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > >>> In accordance with the Generic EHCI/OHCI bindings the corresponding node > >>> name is suppose to comply with the Generic USB HCD DT schema, which > >>> requires the USB nodes to have the name acceptable by the regexp: > >>> "^usb(@.*)?" . Let's fix the DTS files, which have the nodes defined with > >>> incompatible names. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> Please, test the patch out to make sure it doesn't brake the dependent DTS > >>> files. I did only a manual grepping of the possible nodes dependencies. > >> > > > >> Not sure how you envisioned these change to be picked up, but you may > >> need to split these changes between ARM/ARM64, MIPS and PowerPC at > >> least. And within ARM/ARM64 you will most likely have to split according > >> to the various SoC maintainers. > > > > Hmm, I don't really know how it's going to be done in this case, but there must > > be a way to get the cross-platform patches picked up in general. For > > instance, see the patches like: > > 714acdbd1c94 arch: rename copy_thread_tls() back to copy_thread() > > 140c8180eb7c arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS > > They touched the files from different files, but still have been merged in. > > That situation is different, when a new facility is added and someone > has gone through the work of adding support for all architectures (or > nearly all of them), you want them to be merged in a way that limits > merge conflicts with other architecture changes. > > Here you are fixing warnings, and each file you touch can clearly be > independently change from other files in the series without causing > merge conflicts. You are however creating the potential for merge > conflicts with other changes that the various SoC maintainers have > queued up. > > > Maybe I should have copied these three patches to the "linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > > list or some other mailing list... > > Maybe Rob can queue them through his device tree repository, with the > ack of the various SoC maintainers... That's what I hoped for in the first place. But AFAICS now Rob does the splitting of his patches himself, while the repo is used either for the Documentation/devicetree/ patches or for the Rob'es own work. So it seems to me I'll have to split the series up and resubmit... ( Hope I am wrong. So, @Rob, will you be able to merge this and the next two patches in via your repo or you'd rather suggest for me to split it up and resubmit? -Sergey > -- > Florian
