From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] dt-bindings: net: realtek: Add property to configure LED mode Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:01:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20190722190133.GF8972@lunn.ch> References: <20190703193724.246854-1-mka@chromium.org> <20190703193724.246854-6-mka@chromium.org> <20190703232331.GL250418@google.com> <20190722171418.GV250418@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190722171418.GV250418@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthias Kaehlcke Cc: Rob Herring , Florian Fainelli , "David S . Miller" , Mark Rutland , Heiner Kallweit , netdev , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Douglas Anderson List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:14:18AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > I'm working on a generic binding. > > I wonder what is the best process for reviewing/landing it, I'm > doubting between two options: > > a) only post the binding doc and the generic PHY code that reads > the configuration from the DT. Post Realtek patches once > the binding/generic code has been acked. > > pros: no churn from Realtek specific patches > cons: initially no (real) user of the new binding > > b) post generic and Realtek changes together > > pros: the binding has a user initially > cons: churn from Realtek specific patches > > I can do either, depending on what maintainers/reviewers prefer. I'm > slightly inclined towards a) Hi Matthias It is normal to include one user of any generic API which is added, just to make is clear how an API should be used. Andrew