On 2023-07-26 10:42:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > 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 If this was fixed, why next gets some outdated branches of drm next?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 outdated or have stuff known to be incomplete?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. There were comments on some of the patches that would have an effect on the binding parts (including the examples). - Marijn
