Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: pci: tegra: Update for per-lane PHYs

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1529 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 11:48:14AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <treding-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> > 
> > Changes to the pad controller device tree binding 
> 
> Is there a commit we can reference for this pad controller binding
> change?  If so, I can fold it in.

It hasn't been merged yet. Technically this patch is a prerequisite for
getting the new binding merged. And there's a specific order that needs
to be observed for this not to regress (albeit only temporarily).

The correct sequence for merging this would be:

	1) XUSB pad controller binding & driver updates
	2) PCI driver updates
	3) DT changes that implement the new binding

Because of the above I'd prefer to merge everything through the Tegra
tree. If that's okay with you, I can provide stable branches once its
all in place for you to merge back into the PCI tree.

> Is there a benefit to keeping this binding patch separate from the
> corresponding driver patch?  It seems like it'd nice to have a
> connection between them.  (Sorry, I'm sure I've asked this before,
> but I can't remember the answer.)

I've seen both approaches applied. I think separate patches is (or was?)
preferred because eventually the DT bindings were supposed to get moved
to a separate repository. Having separate patches would make the
transition easier by making it possible to cherry-pick between trees.

Thierry

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