Hello,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 08:20:26AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Dharma.B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 12/02/24 3:53 pm, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 08/02/2024 11:43, Lee Jones wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 05:47:33 +0530, Dharma Balasubiramani wrote:
> > >>> Convert the atmel,hlcdc binding to DT schema format.
> > >>>
> > >>> Align clocks and clock-names properties to clearly indicate that the LCD
> > >>> controller expects lvds_pll_clk when interfaced with the lvds display. This
> > >>> alignment with the specific hardware requirements ensures accurate device tree
> > >>> configuration for systems utilizing the HLCDC IP.
> > >>>
> > >>> [...]
> > >>
> > >> Applied, thanks!
> > >>
> > >> [3/3] dt-bindings: mfd: atmel,hlcdc: Convert to DT schema format
> > >> commit: cb946db1335b599ece363d33966bf653ed0fa58a
> > >>
> > >
> > > Next is still failing.
>
> If this continues to be an issue, I can just remove the commit.
The missing part in next is that patch 1 isn't included. So the options
are:
a) Someone (dri or dt folks?) merges patch 1
This fixes the state in next, though some commits stay around that
fail dt_binding_check
b) Someone (mfd or dt?) merges all 3 patches in one go and the two
patches already applied are dropped.
This makes dt_binding_check happy for all revs.
For me a) is good enough, but I guess the dri people are not aware there
is something to do for them?! Would be nice if Sam or Boris commented.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
