On 28/11/2023 21:58, 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? > It was also written in the PWM patch itself (under changelog ---) and expressed with my "applied" response when I took everything. I am sending now another set, also touching PWM. Best regards, Krzysztof
