On 26/07/2023 09:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 25/07/2023 13:46, Marijn Suijten wrote: >> On 2023-07-25 12:16:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Example DTS should not have 'status' property. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm6125-mdss.yaml | 6 ------ >> >> This is not needed: it has already been corrected in v3 and v4 of the >> respective series (among other changes) and the patches were only picked >> to a preliminary (draft) pull to get an overview of the outstanding work >> for this subsystem. That branch happens to be included in regular -next >> releases though. >> >> 6.6 drm/msm display pull: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/merge_requests/69 >> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230718-sm6125-dpu-v3-0-6c5a56e99820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230723-sm6125-dpu-v4-0-a3f287dd6c07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > What do you mean? The old code (one I am fixing) is in current next... > > If this was fixed, why next gets some outdated branches of drm next? > Each maintainers next tree is supposed to be fed into the next, without > delays. > Ah, I think I understood - some work in progress was applied to work-in-progress branch of drm/msm and this somehow got pushed to linux-next? How anyone is supposed to work on next branches if they are outdated or have stuff known to be incomplete? Best regards, Krzysztof
