On 24/02/2022 11:06, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2022, 11:02:48 CET schrieb Lee Jones: >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >> >>> Hi Lee, >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones: >>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>>> Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep >>>>> the old name in bindings as deprecated. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++ >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> what is your expectation regarding this patch? >>> >>> Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through >>> some other tree? >>> >>> The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old >>> node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory >>> this patch should be able to be applied on its own without >>> causing defects. >> >> In an ideal world, it would be broken up and I would take the MFD >> part. Is that possible or are there dependencies? > > That is also what Krzysztof had in mind - see his reply to patch4. > Binding going through the MFD tree and soc maintainers applying > the individual dts patches. > > As written the binding change is backward compatible, so no harm. > > I was just confused by the "Acked-by" and wanted to clarify how you > see it ;-) > The bindings patch should not be split more, but itself can be taken alone. DTS patches can go via SoC maintainer trees. Best regards, Krzysztof
