On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
This helps validating DTS files.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
& MFD).
Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
it queued for Linus?
What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
by "dt_binding_check".
In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
Rob, what is your final word on this? Is it a forced requirement for
all interconnected document changes to go in together?
The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.
I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.
Guenter
