From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:38:10 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 00/14] arm64: dts: meson-axg: add audio support In-Reply-To: (Martin Blumenstingl's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2018 23:26:27 +0200") References: <20180724125238.14567-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <705e31bf0d978b7d356b2f077179ab0e3db6f092.camel@baylibre.com> Message-ID: <7hfu051xvh.fsf@baylibre.com> To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linus-amlogic.lists.infradead.org Martin Blumenstingl writes: > Hi Jerome, > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 21:11 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >> > nit-pick: one patch uses "arm64: dts: meson-axg: s400" in the subject >> > while other patches that are touching the s400 board aren't >> > if you have to re-send this series: can you please use the "arm64: >> > dts: meson-axg: s400:" prefix for all patches touching the s400 board? >> >> hum, do we really have such rule, or do you think we should add one ? > looking at the git history in arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic: it seems > that we don't have a rule yet, even though some (some of > your's/Neil's/my) patches were using that naming schema in the past > >> Kevin, do you have opinion ? >> >> Not that I really mind either way, but prefixes rules are usually there to help >> maintainer filter the patches. Will such rule help in any way ? > maybe it's just a problem of a false initial impression > I read "arm64: dts: meson-axg: add usb power regulator" in the > cover-letter and came to the conclusion that this patch must be wrong > since meson-axg.dtsi should not have any regulators (unless they're > built into the SoC). only when looking at the patch itself I realized > that it's fine because it patches the s400.dts I actually had the same first impression problem. At first glance, it looks like all the patches are AXG-generic, and only the 2 that mention s400 apply to the board. So, if this needs a respin, I'd prefer the board name where appropriate, but it's not something I'm going to be picky about. Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:38:10 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 00/14] arm64: dts: meson-axg: add audio support In-Reply-To: (Martin Blumenstingl's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2018 23:26:27 +0200") References: <20180724125238.14567-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <705e31bf0d978b7d356b2f077179ab0e3db6f092.camel@baylibre.com> Message-ID: <7hfu051xvh.fsf@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Martin Blumenstingl writes: > Hi Jerome, > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 21:11 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >> > nit-pick: one patch uses "arm64: dts: meson-axg: s400" in the subject >> > while other patches that are touching the s400 board aren't >> > if you have to re-send this series: can you please use the "arm64: >> > dts: meson-axg: s400:" prefix for all patches touching the s400 board? >> >> hum, do we really have such rule, or do you think we should add one ? > looking at the git history in arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic: it seems > that we don't have a rule yet, even though some (some of > your's/Neil's/my) patches were using that naming schema in the past > >> Kevin, do you have opinion ? >> >> Not that I really mind either way, but prefixes rules are usually there to help >> maintainer filter the patches. Will such rule help in any way ? > maybe it's just a problem of a false initial impression > I read "arm64: dts: meson-axg: add usb power regulator" in the > cover-letter and came to the conclusion that this patch must be wrong > since meson-axg.dtsi should not have any regulators (unless they're > built into the SoC). only when looking at the patch itself I realized > that it's fine because it patches the s400.dts I actually had the same first impression problem. At first glance, it looks like all the patches are AXG-generic, and only the 2 that mention s400 apply to the board. So, if this needs a respin, I'd prefer the board name where appropriate, but it's not something I'm going to be picky about. Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] arm64: dts: meson-axg: add audio support Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:38:10 -0500 Message-ID: <7hfu051xvh.fsf@baylibre.com> References: <20180724125238.14567-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <705e31bf0d978b7d356b2f077179ab0e3db6f092.camel@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Martin Blumenstingl's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2018 23:26:27 +0200") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Blumenstingl Cc: jbrunet@baylibre.com, carlo@caione.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, p.zabel@pengutronix.de, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Martin Blumenstingl writes: > Hi Jerome, > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:19 PM wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 21:11 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >> > nit-pick: one patch uses "arm64: dts: meson-axg: s400" in the subject >> > while other patches that are touching the s400 board aren't >> > if you have to re-send this series: can you please use the "arm64: >> > dts: meson-axg: s400:" prefix for all patches touching the s400 board? >> >> hum, do we really have such rule, or do you think we should add one ? > looking at the git history in arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic: it seems > that we don't have a rule yet, even though some (some of > your's/Neil's/my) patches were using that naming schema in the past > >> Kevin, do you have opinion ? >> >> Not that I really mind either way, but prefixes rules are usually there to help >> maintainer filter the patches. Will such rule help in any way ? > maybe it's just a problem of a false initial impression > I read "arm64: dts: meson-axg: add usb power regulator" in the > cover-letter and came to the conclusion that this patch must be wrong > since meson-axg.dtsi should not have any regulators (unless they're > built into the SoC). only when looking at the patch itself I realized > that it's fine because it patches the s400.dts I actually had the same first impression problem. At first glance, it looks like all the patches are AXG-generic, and only the 2 that mention s400 apply to the board. So, if this needs a respin, I'd prefer the board name where appropriate, but it's not something I'm going to be picky about. Kevin