On 12/6/21 11:37 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 12/6/21 11:13 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 12/6/21 11:10 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes, >>> but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree, >>> that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond >>> the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear >>> otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being >>> and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out. >> >> There is simply no rush in getting the bcm7038-wdt driver to support >> 4908 *just now*, so why don't you just take the bcm63xx-wdt series that >> I posed, and Rafal posts an updated series that adds support for the >> 4908 watchdog for the 5.18 cycle? >> > > Your series includes the patch discussed here, and it is the first patch > of your series. The second patch in your series depends on it. Are you > telling me that I should drop those two patches from your series ? No, quite the contrary, I want you to keep the entire 7 patches that converted the bcm7038-wdt binding to YAML and get rid of the bcm63xx-wdt changes, the branch that you have right now is good in that regard. I don't see why you should be creating an immutable branch for Lee and not simply merge Rafal's "[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block" patch with Lee's ack directly. This is a new file, so I don't see how it would create conflicts as long as we don't pile up changes on top. -- Florian
