On 26/07/2023 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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If this was fixed, why next gets some outdated branches of drm next?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outdated or have stuff known to be incomplete?
The drm/msm & bindings parts were considered final, but then I failed to
send 'applied' series for some reason. And then it was natural for
Marijn to send an updated revision.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
