From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Simek Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/6] arm64: zynqmp: Add DDRC node Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:32:55 +0100 Message-ID: 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> <20181105132007.GB7937@zn.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181105132007.GB7937@zn.tnic> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Borislav Petkov , Michal Simek Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, leoyang.li@nxp.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, Manish Narani , sudeep.holla@arm.com, Olof Johansson , mchehab@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 05. 11. 18 14:20, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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? you don't have that HW anyway. > >> 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. I looked at v10 and I can't see your ack there. Can you please give me a link? I see Rob's reviewed by in v10 2/6 > 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. I have not a problem with that. I can simply take patch (process via arm-soc) with pointing to reviewed binding doc and you will take the rest when this is in arm-soc tree. Thanks, Michal