On 23/02/2022 07:22, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:27:08AM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel >>> depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :) >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >>> Krzysztof Kozlowski (4): >>> dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema >>> arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema >>> arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema >>> arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema >>> >>> [...] >> >> Applied, thanks! >> >> [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema >> commit: 474a84be692d893f45a54b405dcbc137cbf77949 > > I expected that all patches in this series go in together via an ARM > tree. Or are there expectations that this goes via PWM? I would propose to pick individual patches by each maintainer. bindings by PWM tree (Rob acked it) and DTS via each SoC tree. Such approach gives flexibility, although `make dtbs_check` will spot the new errors when run in PWM tree. Next will be fine, though. Best regards, Krzysztof
