[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[slemieux.tyco at gmail.com]

From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>

This patchset change the following:
1) adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
   clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h

2) disable, by default, the SSP0/SPI1 and SSP1/SPI2 shared pinout;
   shared pin should be enable in board specific dts, as needed.

3) enable SSP0 used by PHY3250.

Sylvain Lemieux (3):
  arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes
  arm: dts: lpc32xx: disabled ssp0/spi1 & ssp1/spi2 by default
  arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0

 arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts  |  1 +
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)

-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 1/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes

[slemieux.tyco at gmail.com]

From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>

The change adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h

Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
index c58d8da..0b6a643 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
@@ -173,6 +173,8 @@
 			spi1: spi at 20088000 {
 				compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-spi";
 				reg = <0x20088000 0x1000>;
+				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI1>;
+				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
 			};
 
 			ssp1: ssp at 2008c000 {
@@ -186,6 +188,8 @@
 			spi2: spi at 20090000 {
 				compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-spi";
 				reg = <0x20090000 0x1000>;
+				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI2>;
+				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
 			};
 
 			i2s0: i2s at 20094000 {
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 1/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Hi Sylvain,

On 14.04.2016 15:20, slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> 
> The change adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
> clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
> index c58d8da..0b6a643 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
> @@ -173,6 +173,8 @@
>  			spi1: spi at 20088000 {
>  				compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-spi";
>  				reg = <0x20088000 0x1000>;
> +				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI1>;
> +				clock-names = "apb_pclk";

I'm not sure that here is a correct clock name, and it looks like it
is copied from some PrimeCell device node, may be "arm,pl022" SPI.

Reasons to NOT add clock-names property:
* the name is one in one PrimeCell clock name, which may be confusing,
* there is no "nxp,lpc3220-spi" SPI controller driver in the mainline,
* there is no documented description of controller's properties,
* the controller has only one clock, so I believe "clock-names"
  is redundant here.

I don't object against adding "clocks" property, but no public driver
means no testing, unfortunately.

FWIW there was an attempt to add the driver of pretty bad quality,
and it does not define a "clock-names" property [1].

>  			};
>  
>  			ssp1: ssp at 2008c000 {
> @@ -186,6 +188,8 @@
>  			spi2: spi at 20090000 {
>  				compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-spi";
>  				reg = <0x20090000 0x1000>;
> +				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI2>;
> +				clock-names = "apb_pclk";

Same as above.

>  			};
>  
>  			i2s0: i2s at 20094000 {
> 

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/12/61

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

[PATCH 1/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes

[Sylvain Lemieux]

Hi Vladimir,

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 05:39 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
> 
> On 14.04.2016 15:20, slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> > 
> > The change adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
> > clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
> > index c58d8da..0b6a643 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
> > @@ -173,6 +173,8 @@
> >  			spi1: spi at 20088000 {
> >  				compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-spi";
> >  				reg = <0x20088000 0x1000>;
> > +				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI1>;
> > +				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
> 
> I'm not sure that here is a correct clock name, and it looks like it
> is copied from some PrimeCell device node, may be "arm,pl022" SPI.
> 
> Reasons to NOT add clock-names property:
> * the name is one in one PrimeCell clock name, which may be confusing,
> * there is no "nxp,lpc3220-spi" SPI controller driver in the mainline,
> * there is no documented description of controller's properties,
> * the controller has only one clock, so I believe "clock-names"
>   is redundant here.
> 
I will try without the clock name, and, update the patch accordingly.

> I don't object against adding "clocks" property, but no public driver
> means no testing, unfortunately.
> 
> FWIW there was an attempt to add the driver of pretty bad quality,

We are currently using our own SPI driver with limited functionality;
the driver support polling mode only.

We did not submit the driver, because of the limited support.

> and it does not define a "clock-names" property [1].
> 
> >  			};
> >  
> >  			ssp1: ssp at 2008c000 {
> > @@ -186,6 +188,8 @@
> >  			spi2: spi at 20090000 {
> >  				compatible = "nxp,lpc3220-spi";
> >  				reg = <0x20090000 0x1000>;
> > +				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI2>;
> > +				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
> 
> Same as above.
> 
> >  			};
> >  
> >  			i2s0: i2s at 20094000 {
> > 
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/12/61
> 
> --
> With best wishes,
> Vladimir

[PATCH 2/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: disabled ssp0/spi1 & ssp1/spi2 by default

[slemieux.tyco at gmail.com]

From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>

The SSP0/SPI1 and SSP1/SPI2 shared pinout and should be disable by default.

Board specific dts should enable them, as needed.

Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
index 0b6a643..aa5cb43 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
@@ -162,12 +162,17 @@
 			compatible = "simple-bus";
 			ranges = <0x20000000 0x20000000 0x30000000>;
 
+			/*
+			 * ssp0 and spi1 are shared pins;
+			 * enable one in your board dts, as needed.
+			 */
 			ssp0: ssp at 20084000 {
 				compatible = "arm,pl022", "arm,primecell";
 				reg = <0x20084000 0x1000>;
 				interrupts = <20 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
 				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SSP0>;
 				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
+				status = "disabled";
 			};
 
 			spi1: spi at 20088000 {
@@ -175,14 +180,20 @@
 				reg = <0x20088000 0x1000>;
 				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI1>;
 				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
+				status = "disabled";
 			};
 
+			/*
+			 * ssp1 and spi2 are shared pins;
+			 * enable one in your board dts, as needed.
+			 */
 			ssp1: ssp at 2008c000 {
 				compatible = "arm,pl022", "arm,primecell";
 				reg = <0x2008c000 0x1000>;
 				interrupts = <21 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
 				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SSP1>;
 				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
+				status = "disabled";
 			};
 
 			spi2: spi at 20090000 {
@@ -190,6 +201,7 @@
 				reg = <0x20090000 0x1000>;
 				clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SPI2>;
 				clock-names = "apb_pclk";
+				status = "disabled";
 			};
 
 			i2s0: i2s at 20094000 {
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 3/3] arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0

[slemieux.tyco at gmail.com]

From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>

Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
index a00d7ce..26e070f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@
 				#size-cells = <0>;
 				num-cs = <1>;
 				cs-gpios = <&gpio 3 5 0>;
+				status = "okay";
 
 				eeprom: at25 at 0 {
 					pl022,interface = <0>;
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 3/3] arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Hi Sylvain,

On 14.04.2016 15:20, slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> 

even a short commit message is highly appreciated, e.g. "this is a preparatory
change prior to disabling SSPx controllers by default in the shared LPC32xx
DTSI file".

> Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
> index a00d7ce..26e070f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
> @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@
>  				#size-cells = <0>;
>  				num-cs = <1>;
>  				cs-gpios = <&gpio 3 5 0>;
> +				status = "okay";
>  
>  				eeprom: at25 at 0 {
>  					pl022,interface = <0>;
> 

Could you please swap 2/3 and 3/3 ?

This may save some time to git-bisect users, if there are any :)

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

[PATCH 3/3] arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0

[Sylvain Lemieux]

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 05:47 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
> 
> On 14.04.2016 15:20, slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> > 
> 
> even a short commit message is highly appreciated, e.g. "this is a preparatory
> change prior to disabling SSPx controllers by default in the shared LPC32xx
> DTSI file".
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
> > index a00d7ce..26e070f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts
> > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@
> >  				#size-cells = <0>;
> >  				num-cs = <1>;
> >  				cs-gpios = <&gpio 3 5 0>;
> > +				status = "okay";
> >  
> >  				eeprom: at25 at 0 {
> >  					pl022,interface = <0>;
> > 
> 
> Could you please swap 2/3 and 3/3 ?
> 
OK, will submit v2 tomorrow.

> This may save some time to git-bisect users, if there are any :)
> 
> --
> With best wishes,
> Vladimir

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 14 April 2016 08:20:34 slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> 
> This patchset change the following:
> 1) adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
>    clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h
> 
> 2) disable, by default, the SSP0/SPI1 and SSP1/SPI2 shared pinout;
>    shared pin should be enable in board specific dts, as needed.
> 
> 3) enable SSP0 used by PHY3250.
> 
> Sylvain Lemieux (3):
>   arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes
>   arm: dts: lpc32xx: disabled ssp0/spi1 & ssp1/spi2 by default
>   arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0
> 
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts  |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> 

The patches look fine, but it's unclear what you want to happen with them
as long as the maintainer situation is not resolved. I've seen patches
from Vladimir and you recently, and none from Roland, so I think it would
be good if one or both of you could officially step up to be maintainers
and collect all patches to forward them to arm at kernel.org for inclusion.

Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
update the MAINTAINERS file.

For the patch descriptions, please always start the subject with 'ARM',
not 'arm' to follow the common convention, and always add a multi-line
description even for trivial patches.

	Arnd

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Hi Arnd,

On 16.04.2016 22:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 14 April 2016 08:20:34 slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
>>
>> This patchset change the following:
>> 1) adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
>>    clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h
>>
>> 2) disable, by default, the SSP0/SPI1 and SSP1/SPI2 shared pinout;
>>    shared pin should be enable in board specific dts, as needed.
>>
>> 3) enable SSP0 used by PHY3250.
>>
>> Sylvain Lemieux (3):
>>   arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes
>>   arm: dts: lpc32xx: disabled ssp0/spi1 & ssp1/spi2 by default
>>   arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0
>>
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts  |  1 +
>>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>>
> 
> The patches look fine, but it's unclear what you want to happen with them
> as long as the maintainer situation is not resolved. I've seen patches
> from Vladimir and you recently, and none from Roland, so I think it would
> be good if one or both of you could officially step up to be maintainers
> and collect all patches to forward them to arm at kernel.org for inclusion.

for v4.5 and v4.6 I collected my own patches from LAKML after review,
I started to do it for v4.7, but probably a bit later than desired.

Could you please remind me, when do ARM maintainers generally stop
applying "for-next" pull requests?

> Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
> update the MAINTAINERS file.

I'll send a change on behalf of myself, at this point I don't think that
pure lpc32xx maintenance (deliberately here I exclude development!) task
takes more than 20 hours per month, which is affordable for me,
Sylvain please express your view.

> For the patch descriptions, please always start the subject with 'ARM',
> not 'arm' to follow the common convention, and always add a multi-line
> description even for trivial patches.
> 
> 	Arnd
> 

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 18 April 2016 07:45:00 Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On 16.04.2016 22:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 April 2016 08:20:34 slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> >>
> >> This patchset change the following:
> >> 1) adds clock properties to spi peripheral devices,
> >>    clock ids are taken from dt-bindings/clock/lpc32xx-clock.h
> >>
> >> 2) disable, by default, the SSP0/SPI1 and SSP1/SPI2 shared pinout;
> >>    shared pin should be enable in board specific dts, as needed.
> >>
> >> 3) enable SSP0 used by PHY3250.
> >>
> >> Sylvain Lemieux (3):
> >>   arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to spi nodes
> >>   arm: dts: lpc32xx: disabled ssp0/spi1 & ssp1/spi2 by default
> >>   arm: dts: phy3250: enable ssp0
> >>
> >>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++
> >>  arch/arm/boot/dts/phy3250.dts  |  1 +
> >>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > The patches look fine, but it's unclear what you want to happen with them
> > as long as the maintainer situation is not resolved. I've seen patches
> > from Vladimir and you recently, and none from Roland, so I think it would
> > be good if one or both of you could officially step up to be maintainers
> > and collect all patches to forward them to arm at kernel.org for inclusion.
> 
> for v4.5 and v4.6 I collected my own patches from LAKML after review,
> I started to do it for v4.7, but probably a bit later than desired.
> 
> Could you please remind me, when do ARM maintainers generally stop
> applying "for-next" pull requests?

There is no strict rule. We like to get patches as early as possible
though, and if you send a lot of stuff late we may ask for it to be
deferred until the following release.

If you have a lot of patches that go in early, it's more likely that
later follow-on patches get merged too.


	Arnd

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Sylvain Lemieux]

Hi Vladimir and Arnd,

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 07:45 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On 16.04.2016 22:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 April 2016 08:20:34 slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
> >>
...
> >>
> > The patches look fine, but it's unclear what you want to happen with them
> > as long as the maintainer situation is not resolved. I've seen patches
> > from Vladimir and you recently, and none from Roland, so I think it would
> > be good if one or both of you could officially step up to be maintainers
> > and collect all patches to forward them to arm at kernel.org for inclusion.
> 
> for v4.5 and v4.6 I collected my own patches from LAKML after review,
> I started to do it for v4.7, but probably a bit later than desired.
> 
Vladimir, would it be possible for you to add my change, after review 
is done on LAKML, for the lpc32xx pull request you will do for 4.7?

> > Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
> > update the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> I'll send a change on behalf of myself, at this point I don't think that
> pure lpc32xx maintenance (deliberately here I exclude development!) task
> takes more than 20 hours per month, which is affordable for me,
> Sylvain please express your view.
> 
I can provide support for pure lpc32xx maintenance task 
(I also exclude development); I can free up to 10-15 hours a
month for doing testing and patch review.

Is there any documentation available on the process 
to submit a merge request to the mailing list?

...
> > 
> > 	Arnd
> > 
> 
> --
> With best wishes,
> Vladimir

Sylvain

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 18 April 2016 17:22:28 Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 07:45 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
> > > update the MAINTAINERS file.
> > 
> > I'll send a change on behalf of myself, at this point I don't think that
> > pure lpc32xx maintenance (deliberately here I exclude development!) task
> > takes more than 20 hours per month, which is affordable for me,
> > Sylvain please express your view.
> > 
> I can provide support for pure lpc32xx maintenance task 
> (I also exclude development); I can free up to 10-15 hours a
> month for doing testing and patch review.

Thanks both of you!

> Is there any documentation available on the process 
> to submit a merge request to the mailing list?

We usually teach people on the fly, but you can watch my ELC
presentation from last year at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msT1O8P6KXQ

	Arnd

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Sylvain Lemieux]

Hi Vladimir,

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 23:52 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 April 2016 17:22:28 Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 07:45 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> > > > Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
> > > > update the MAINTAINERS file.
> > > 
Will you send a patch to update the MAINTAINERS file or do you want
me to send it?

Should we add the lpc32xx dts to the list of supported file?

> > > I'll send a change on behalf of myself, at this point I don't think that
> > > pure lpc32xx maintenance (deliberately here I exclude development!) task
> > > takes more than 20 hours per month, which is affordable for me,
> > > Sylvain please express your view.
> > > 
> > I can provide support for pure lpc32xx maintenance task 
> > (I also exclude development); I can free up to 10-15 hours a
> > month for doing testing and patch review.
> 
> Thanks both of you!
> 
> > Is there any documentation available on the process 
> > to submit a merge request to the mailing list?
> 
> We usually teach people on the fly, but you can watch my ELC
> presentation from last year at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msT1O8P6KXQ
> 
> 	Arnd

Sylvain

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Hi Sylvain,

On 20.04.2016 16:28, Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 23:52 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 18 April 2016 17:22:28 Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 07:45 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>> Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
>>>>> update the MAINTAINERS file.
>>>>
> Will you send a patch to update the MAINTAINERS file or do you want
> me to send it?

I'll send to change, you'll be included as a maintainer, the record
also needs some other updates, e.g. it is not about machine support
but about SoC support etc.

Arnd, I'm not sure if MAINTAINERS update should go though a pull
request (= no explicit SoB from an ARM maintainer) or if you expect
to get a patch and apply it yourself, please advise.

> Should we add the lpc32xx dts to the list of supported file?
> 

There is a possibility to add files by regex, which makes sense
to do after renaming dts files - this is in my first priority todo list.

>>>> I'll send a change on behalf of myself, at this point I don't think that
>>>> pure lpc32xx maintenance (deliberately here I exclude development!) task
>>>> takes more than 20 hours per month, which is affordable for me,
>>>> Sylvain please express your view.
>>>>
>>> I can provide support for pure lpc32xx maintenance task 
>>> (I also exclude development); I can free up to 10-15 hours a
>>> month for doing testing and patch review.
>>
>> Thanks both of you!
>>
>>> Is there any documentation available on the process 
>>> to submit a merge request to the mailing list?
>>
>> We usually teach people on the fly, but you can watch my ELC
>> presentation from last year at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msT1O8P6KXQ
>>
>> 	Arnd
> 
> Sylvain

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 21 April 2016 05:19:49 Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
> 
> On 20.04.2016 16:28, Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 23:52 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Monday 18 April 2016 17:22:28 Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 07:45 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> >>>>> Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
> >>>>> update the MAINTAINERS file.
> >>>>
> > Will you send a patch to update the MAINTAINERS file or do you want
> > me to send it?
> 
> I'll send to change, you'll be included as a maintainer, the record
> also needs some other updates, e.g. it is not about machine support
> but about SoC support etc.
> 
> Arnd, I'm not sure if MAINTAINERS update should go though a pull
> request (= no explicit SoB from an ARM maintainer) or if you expect
> to get a patch and apply it yourself, please advise.

Either way works. We tend to group MAINTAINER file updates with bugfixes,
so if you have any other fixes for 4.6 or 4.7, just throw it in the same
pull request you send us, otherwise send a separate patch.

> > Should we add the lpc32xx dts to the list of supported file?
> > 
> 
> There is a possibility to add files by regex, which makes sense
> to do after renaming dts files - this is in my first priority todo list.

The order is not important here, it's fine with me if you want to add
a regex for the new name even if the actual renaming is in a different
branch.

	Arnd

[PATCH 0/3] arm: dts: lpc32xx: update ssp / spi nodes

[Vladimir Zapolskiy]

Hi Sylvain,

On 19.04.2016 00:22, Sylvain Lemieux wrote:
> Hi Vladimir and Arnd,
> 
> On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 07:45 +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>> On 16.04.2016 22:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday 14 April 2016 08:20:34 slemieux.tyco at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux@tycoint.com>
>>>>
> ...
>>>>
>>> The patches look fine, but it's unclear what you want to happen with them
>>> as long as the maintainer situation is not resolved. I've seen patches
>>> from Vladimir and you recently, and none from Roland, so I think it would
>>> be good if one or both of you could officially step up to be maintainers
>>> and collect all patches to forward them to arm at kernel.org for inclusion.
>>
>> for v4.5 and v4.6 I collected my own patches from LAKML after review,
>> I started to do it for v4.7, but probably a bit later than desired.
>>
> Vladimir, would it be possible for you to add my change, after review 
> is done on LAKML, for the lpc32xx pull request you will do for 4.7?

definitely.

For your information I updated my tree https://github.com/vzapolskiy/linux.git
recently, for DTS changes you may want to rebase the changeset on top of
lpc32xx/dt branch.

By the way I plan to rename board DTS files to match lpc32*-*.dts pattern,
but I can postpone doing it until your changes are included.

>>> Once we have an agreement on who does this, please send a patch to
>>> update the MAINTAINERS file.
>>
>> I'll send a change on behalf of myself, at this point I don't think that
>> pure lpc32xx maintenance (deliberately here I exclude development!) task
>> takes more than 20 hours per month, which is affordable for me,
>> Sylvain please express your view.
>>
> I can provide support for pure lpc32xx maintenance task 
> (I also exclude development); I can free up to 10-15 hours a
> month for doing testing and patch review.

Sounds good, thank you. Do you want to take over maintenance on v4.8
cycle?

> Is there any documentation available on the process 
> to submit a merge request to the mailing list?
> 
> ...

As for me I thoroughly observe what other ARM SoC maintainers do, and
ask questions if something remains uncertain.

--
With best wishes,
Vladimir