On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:58:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > Merging > > > ======= > > > I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so > > > they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though). > > > It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean > > > `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS. > > > 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree > > > on the existing DTS. > > > 3. No drivers are affected by this change. > > > 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect > > > follow up patchsets. > > > > > > [...] > > > > Applied, thanks! > > > > [12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC > > commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f > > You didn't honor (or even comment) Krzysztof's proposal to take the > whole patchset via his tree (marked above). Was there some off-list > agreement? I had read all that and then looking at patchwork saw that you had marked all other patches in the series as "handled-elsewhere" and only this one was left as "new", so I assumed that, well, everything else was handled elsewhere and I was supposed to pick this one up... I'll drop this one. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
