Hi, On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 7:39 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:05:39PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:30 AM Sharat Masetty <smasetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This patch simply adds a new compatible string for SC7180 platform. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sharat Masetty <smasetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > index 6515dbe..986098b 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ properties: > > > - enum: > > > - qcom,msm8996-smmu-v2 > > > - qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2 > > > + - qcom,sc7180-smmu-v2 > > > - qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2 > > > - const: qcom,smmu-v2 > > > > Is anything blocking this patch from landing now? > > I thought updates to the bindings usually went via Rob and the device-tree > tree, but neither of those are on cc. > > Perhaps resend with that fixed? Ah, I guess I wasn't familiar with how things worked for this file, or maybe things have changed recently? I'm used to most bindings going through the same tree as the drivers that use them. Usually if things are at all complicated maintainers wait for an Ack from Rob (so he should have been CCed for sure) and then land. In this case it actually looks like Bjorn landed it in the Qualcomm and I just didn't realize it. That seems like it should be fine since it's in the middle of a clause that's all Qualcomm and the change shouldn't be controversial in any way. :-) Thanks! -Doug
