On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:48:53PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > Hi Conor, > > Thanks for the review. > > On 15/01/24 21:44, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 06:27:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > >> This adds common1 register space for AM62x and AM65x SoC's which are using > >> TI's Keystone display hardware and supporting it as described in > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ti/ti,am65x-dss.yaml. > >> > >> This region is documented in respective Technical Reference Manuals [1]. > >> > >> [1]: > >> AM62x TRM: > >> https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 (Section 14.8.9.1 DSS Registers) > >> > >> AM65x TRM: > >> https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruid7 (Section 12.6.5 DSS Registers) > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@xxxxxx> > >> --- > > > > "[DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2]" but no rationale here as to why this cannot > > be merged? What's the problem with it? > > > > No problem as such from my point of view, but this is the process I follow > since maintainer trees for device-tree file and bindings are different. I > generally mark a [DO NOT MERGE] tag for device-tree file patches until binding > patch gets merged so that the device-tree patches don't get applied by mistake > if binding patch has some pending comments. RFC is the tag for "don't merge". Don't make-up your own tags. Rob
