Hi Marek, On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:44 PM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4/29/24 8:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 29/04/2024 17:10, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 3/19/24 6:41 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 19/03/2024 05:20, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> CYW43439 is a Wi-Fi + Bluetooth combo device from Infineon. > >>>> The Bluetooth part is capable of Bluetooth 5.2 BR/EDR/LE . > >>>> This chip is present e.g. on muRata 1YN module. > >>>> > >>>> Extend the binding with its DT compatible using fallback > >>>> compatible string to "brcm,bcm4329-bt" which seems to be > >>>> the oldest compatible device. This should also prevent the > >>>> growth of compatible string tables in drivers. The existing > >>>> block of compatible strings is retained. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Is there any action necessary from me to get this applied ? > > > > I recommend resending with proper PATCH prefix matching net-next > > expectations. > > I don't think bluetooth is net-next , it has its own ML and its own > 'Bluetooth:' subject prefix. Its patchwork.k.o project also doesn't seem > to contain many patches with 'net'/'net-next' prefix. Also DT bindings > do not seem to use it per 'git log > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/bluetooth/'. But the bot is > complaining about the prefix. Hence my confusion. Well usually we require Bluetooth: prefix to indicate this patch is for bluetooth/bluetooth-next trees, or you can do via subject e.g. [bluetooth-next v1...] otherwise it could be merged via other trees. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
