On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:22:49PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: can: fsl,flexcan: add i.MX95 compatible > > string > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:00:27AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: can: fsl,flexcan: add i.MX95 > > > > compatible string > > > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 11:26:25 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > > > > > > Add i.MX95 flexcan which is compatible i.MX93 flexcan > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Hm, you don't apply CAN DTB patches? > > > > > > Nope. I am preparing dt-binding first, then post the i.MX95 SoC dtsi. > > > The CAN will be in the i.MX95 SOC dtsi file, not a single patch only > > > for CAN node. > > > > The question was why isn't Marc, the CAN maintainer, applying this. I have > > the same question. > > That's fine, let's drop this patch, the CAN node will not be put in my soc dtsi > patch file, it will be in a separate patchset with some i.MX95 patches. I am confused. This patch (for the binding) needs to be applied regardless of what you are doing with your soc dtsi file.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
