From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 23:55:48 +0200
Subject: [GIT PULL] ARM: berlin: DT changes for v4.2 (round 1)
In-Reply-To: <2418982.DaY2mGZ7YN@wuerfel>
References: <1431687246-31039-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
 <1431687246-31039-3-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
 <2418982.DaY2mGZ7YN@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <55566B64.1080908@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 15.05.2015 17:33, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 15 May 2015 12:54:06 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> this is Marvell Berlin SoC DT for v4.2 including:
>> - GPLv2/X11 dual-licensing of DT files,
>> - a note about currently unstable DT bindings as we struggle to get
>>    DT bindings right in the first place with limited documentation available,
>> - Rework of System/Chip Controller binding documentation and nodes to
>>    simple-mfd.
>>
>
> I'm a bit confused by this. Are you sure that it's ok to apply this branch
> by itself without introducing regressions or bisection problems?

Ach, dammit. You are right, the patches reworking chip/sys ctrl nodes
are currently un-bisectable. I do have Acked-by's from subsystem
maintainers, so I guess I'll have to squash the DT changes with the
driver changes.

> It's fine to have unstable bindings for a while as you are ramping up,
> but that requires a lot more care on your side regarding the order in
> which you send the patches. I have received three pull requests from
> you that are all based on -rc1, and from a brief look it seems like
> they are interdependent, which would not be ok.

Yes, the rework of the drivers and the corresponding DT changes
depend on each other. Sorry for the confusion.

Sebastian