From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] mscc: ocelot: add support for SerDes muxing configuration Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:07:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20180905090750.GM13888@piout.net> References: <20180903093308.24366-1-quentin.schulz@bootlin.com> <20180903133415.GF4445@lunn.ch> <20180903134522.GC13888@piout.net> <20180903.220910.899357653888940454.davem@davemloft.net> <20180904151653.GI13888@piout.net> <20180904161028.nh5ejrtj22r5az5e@pburton-laptop> <20180904180006.d5th3jrbhr4vtahi@qschulz> <20180904230351.vwlq2s7joulvqw2i@pburton-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180904230351.vwlq2s7joulvqw2i@pburton-laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Burton Cc: Quentin Schulz , David Miller , andrew@lunn.ch, ralf@linux-mips.org, jhogan@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, kishon@ti.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, allan.nielsen@microchip.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 04/09/2018 16:03:51-0700, Paul Burton wrote: > Well, it sounded like David is OK with this all going through the MIPS > tree, though we'd need an ack for the PHY parts. > > Alternatively I'd be happy for the DT changes to go through the net-next > tree, which may make more sense given that the .dts changes are pretty > trivial in comparison with the driver changes. If David wants to do that > then for patches 1 & 8: > > Acked-by: Paul Burton > > Either way there may be conflicts for ocelot.dtsi when it comes to > merging to master, but they should be simple to resolve. It seems > Wolfram already took your DT changes for I2C so there's probably going > to be multiple trees updating that file this cycle already anyway. > Actually, I think Wolfram meant that he took the bindings so you can take the DT patches for i2c. > Ideally I'd say "don't break bisection" but that's sort of a separate > issue here since even if you restructure your series to do that it would > still need to go through one tree. For example you could adjust > mscc_ocelot_probe() to handle either the reg property or the syscon, > then adjust the DT to use the syscon, then remove the code dealing with > the reg property, and I'd consider that a good idea anyway but it would > still probably all need to go through one tree to make sure things get > merged in the right order & avoid breaking bisection. > I don't really think bisection is important at this stage but if you don't want to break it, then I guess it makes more sense to have the whole series through net. -- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com