On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark, are you OK with the latest iteration from Suman? it would be > nice to get your +1 just to make sure we don't merge stuff you're > uncomfortable with. Quick update: As Tim pointed out, we can move forward with the driver binding patch according to the process described under II.2 of [1]. Both Bjorn and myself would still prefer to make sure Mark is satisfied with the response Bjorn sent to Mark's question, but we understand if Mark is swamped and we eventually would proceed according to the DT's submitting-patches guidance below. Tim, thanks for pointing that out as I wasn't aware of this. What we probably do need a DT ack on is the hwspinlock subsystem binding submitted by Suman, again according to the process described under II.2 of [1]: "Subsystem bindings (anything affecting more than a single device): then getting a devicetree maintainer to review it is required". Mark and Rob: thanks so much for all your help so far as you have substantially helped shaping the hwspinlock binding. Please let us know if you are satisfied with Suman's latest iteration, still prefer to take another look at it, or are too swamped. If the latter, then maybe we can ask Kumar to take a look, as this seems to be blocking Qualcomm's upstream roadmap. Thanks, Ohad. [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
