On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 18:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:48:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > > Each memory client has unique hardware ID, add these IDs. > > > > > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/dt-bindings/memory/tegra20-mc.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+) > > > > Is there any chance you could drop these dt-bindings include patches > > (17, 18 and 19) so that I can pick them up into the Tegra tree? The > > device tree changes that I was going to pick up depend on this and > > fail to build if applied as-is. > > > > I was looking at your linux-mem-ctrl tree and had initially thought I > > could just pull in one of the branches to get these dependencies, but it > > looks like the dt-bindings patches are on the for-v5.11/tegra-mc branch, > > which the ARM SoC maintainers wouldn't like to see me pull in for a > > dependency on device tree changes. > > Partially you answered here. :) Since you should not pull my branch into > a DT branch, you also should not put these include/dt-bindings patches > there. SoC guys will complain about this as well. > > These patches are also needed for the driver, so if you take them, I > would need them back in a pull request. SoC folks could spot it as well > and point that such merge should not happen. It seems I was wrong - these patches are not needed for the driver code. Neither in applied parts nor in upcoming Dmitry's work. In such case I could rework my branches and send a new pull request. The patches would stay only in your tree. Best regards, Krzysztof
