Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Add support for Tegra DPAUX pinctrl

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1792 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:03:34PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> The Display Port Auxiliary (DPAUX) channel pads can be shared with an
> internal I2C controller. Add pinctrl support for these pads so that the
> I2C controller can request and use these pads.
> 
> Jon Hunter (13):
>   drm/tegra: Clean-up if probing DPAUX fails
>   drm/tegra: Add helper functions for setting up DPAUX pads
>   dt-bindings: drm/tegra: Update DPAUX documentation
>   drm/tegra: Add sor-safe clock for DPAUX on Tegra210
>   drm/tegra: Prepare DPAUX for supporting generic PM domains
>   pinctrl: pinconf: Add generic helper function for freeing mappings
>   dt-bindings: i2c: Add support for 'i2c-bus' subnode
>   i2c: core: Add support for 'i2c-bus' subnode
>   dt-bindings: drm/tegra: Add DPAUX pinctrl documentation
>   drm/tegra: Add pinctrl support for DPAUX
>   arm64: tegra: Add SOR power-domain node
>   arm64: tegra: Add sor-safe clock to DPAUX binding
>   arm64: tegra: Add DPAUX pinctrl bindings

There aren't really any hard dependencies between all these patches,
right? I think the worst case would be if the arm64 DTS changes get
merged before the I2C core changes (i2c-bus node support), then the
I2C core will complain about the pinmux nodes, but that wouldn't be
fatal, or have any bad side-effects, right?

If so, I think it would be fine if the I2C changes went through the
I2C tree. It might be nicer to have the I2C changes in a separate branch
that could be pulled into the Tegra tree so that we can get everything
ready there and avoid the warnings.

Wolfram, if you agree I can apply the I2C patches (binding + core) to a
stable branch and send out a pull request? That is, once Jon's addressed
any comments and you are onboard with the change.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]