On 2023-05-01 17:18:38, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
<snip>
> > > > Otherwise we can do (a) early in next cycle. Feel free to poke me if we are doing (b)
> > > > and I seem to have forgotten to pick up this patch!
> > >
> > > Thanks! I hope we don't get many conflicts (+ new bindings adhering to
> > > the old(er) formats) otherwise I'll resend if we do (a). Around what
> > > time would be good, rc2?
> >
> > Sure. If rebase is needed send a v5 with that done. If not, a simple
> > reminder reply to this thread will probably work.
>
> I've started queuing stuff for the next cycle as the relevant pull requests
> are for the IIO tree for this cycle were picked up a few days ago.
>
> Hence, applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for 0-day
> to take a quick look at it.
Thanks, running with:
make VALIDATE_DT=1 ARCH=arm64 dt_binding_checka dtbs_check \
DT_SCHEMA_FILES="Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/adc/qcom,spmi-vadc.yaml"
And similar for ARCH=arm on -next-20230428 shows that there is no new
use of the old (arbitrary) node name format, so no v5 should be
necessary (unless those patches also land at the same time...).
Such a resend would only affect patch 1/5 and 3/5 though, which rewrite
the actual DTS node names.
- Marijn
