From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/6] arm64: zynqmp: Add DDRC node Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:20:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20181105132007.GB7937@zn.tnic> References: <1540447621-22870-1-git-send-email-manish.narani@xilinx.com> <1540447621-22870-6-git-send-email-manish.narani@xilinx.com> <20181105125644.GA7937@zn.tnic> <41c5ca53-ed4b-38d0-c612-e1229004293e@xilinx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41c5ca53-ed4b-38d0-c612-e1229004293e@xilinx.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michal Simek Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Manish Narani , robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, mchehab@kernel.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, leoyang.li@nxp.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:06:11PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > I don't think that driver will be broken. You can build them, use them > on out of tree HW. And when this patch is merged to mainline it will be > enabled for xilinx soc. But if the DT entries are missing, the driver won't load, would it? > TBH I can't see any reason to do merges but if you want to do that way > we can also do it. The reason is because there's a separate DT tree and all those arm drivers need DT. I have already acked EDAC patches to go through other trees too, FWIW. Which is not optimal either if someone sends fixes ontop but I cannot apply them yet because the dependent patches are in a different tree. So yes, there are at least two good reasons for merging a shared branch. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.