Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: convert ocelot-pinctrl to YAML format

Michael Walle
2022-04-18T12:04:22Z

Am 2022-04-18 13:13, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 18/04/2022 10:19, Michael Walle wrote:
>> [resend, use Krysztof's new email address]
>>
>> Am 2022-04-18 01:41, schrieb Linus Walleij:
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 9:47 PM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Convert the ocelot-pinctrl device tree binding to the new YAML
>>>> format.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally to the original binding documentation, add interrupt
>>>> properties which are optional and already used on several SoCs like
>>>> SparX-5, Luton, Ocelot and LAN966x but were not documented before.
>>>>
>>>> Also, on the sparx5 and the lan966x SoCs there are two items for the
>>>> reg property.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>>>
>>> So is this single patch something I should apply to the pin control
>>> tree?
>>
>> The first five patches will fix the validation errrors once the
>> binding is converted to the YAML format. So, do they need to go
>> through the same tree?
>>
>> Also as mentioned, there is this pending series [1] which is the
>> reason I've converted the binding to YAML in the first place. So
>> at least the first patch of this series will have to go through
>> the same tree as the YAML conversion patch.
>>
>> How can we move forward here? Krzysztof, maybe all of the dt
>> bindings patches can go through your tree and I'll reposting
>> the second patch of [1] afterwards?
>
> I think you got all necessary acks for this pinctrl bindings change and
> the dependency ("add reset property"), so both can go via Linus' tree.
> That's preferred.
>
> DTS patches goes through your SoC maintainer tree.

Ah, ok, I wasn't aware of that. Then yes, please go ahead and
pick this and the first patch of [1] up, Linus.

Of course if you like you can pick the second patch of [1],
too. But I can also repost it without the RFC tag if that is
preferred.

-michael

[1]