Florian Fainelli wrote: > 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. Rafał Miłecki wrote: > would that be OK for you to simply ack 2/2? So Guenter can pick my > patch without the whole immutable branch & PR thing? Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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. If Rob wants `dt_binding_check` to run cleanly in -next, we have to treat the DT documentation in the same manner we do for real code when build dependencies exist between patches. Simply sucking them up through a single repo is just dandy until subsequent changes are required, which unfortunately is often the case. Being the Maintainer of MFD, which is often the centre point of cross-subsystems patch sets, I've been bitten by this too many times. Hence my hesitancy to 'just Ack it and be done'. I've been pushing back on the requirement for clean `dt_binding_check` runs in -next for a while and would much prefer to treat it the same way we do `checkpatch.pl`, whereby a clean run is not a hard requirement. Instead it is used as one of many tools to check for inconsistencies prior to submission (as possibly against patch-sets once they are posted onto the list). However, just as we see false positives in `checkpatch.pl` we should see them in `dt_binding_check` where patches have simply been applied into different trees and may lag each other by a week or two. > It sounded to me like Lee wanted an immutable branch for that Not exactly, I said: "> Suppose we should take patch #2 via [Watchdog] as well. If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch." The alternative is that I take the patch and provide an immutable branch to you, which I am in a position to do. Of course all of this hassle just goes away if the clean `dt_binding_check` run on -next requirement is laxed and we can just take our own patches without fear of wrath. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
