On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Tim Bird <tbird20d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Tim Bird <tbird20d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Sorry, I can't take this without a DT ack. >>> >>> Hmmm. >>> >>> The policy seems to be: >>> "For driver (not subsystem) bindings: If you are comfortable with the >>> binding, and it hasn't received an Acked-by from the devicetree >>> maintainers after a few weeks, go ahead and take it." >>> >>> The syscon property is only relative to the qcom hwspinlock driver, >>> (unless I'm missing something) and both Qualcomm and Sony devs are >>> OK with it. So while an ACK from the DT side would be nice, I don't >>> think it's required. This is exactly the type of delay that is really >>> holding up a lot of out-of-tree code. >> >> Sorry, I do prefer to make sure Mark is OK with this devicetree patch, >> especially since it wasn't clear whether Mark is entirely comfortable >> with it in his last response. > > Just to be clear - do you personally have any objections to the patch? No, but this patch is for a folder I don't maintain so I prefer someone who does to take a look. Mark did take a look, and said he's confused by this patch (see this thread). Do you want me to ignore him and just send it to Linus anyway? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
