On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > >> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> This helps validating DTS files. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog > >>>> & MFD). > >>>> > >>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get > >>>> it queued for Linus? > >>> > >>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together? > >> > >> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check" > >> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree. > >> > >> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced > >> by "dt_binding_check". > > > > In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it. > > > > Rob, what is your final word on this? Is it a forced requirement for > > all interconnected document changes to go in together? > > The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02 > > and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should > take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically. If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
