From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www.linux-watchdog.org (www.linux-watchdog.org [185.87.125.42]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE43A212181; Thu, 7 Nov 2024 14:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.87.125.42 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730991183; cv=none; b=ZByB5AN3e4bcT6VreLajuQkxdjKmYAFSPB7FMNWQ0R27rgF38gWmdVFh79cQCDl06w0G55hNVWcCEbwVRBIDwcHYYc5yxei3QZOZfE5CIW+LwIqNVuGNuIirQ+4cBWiKQT3ADlzRPsCuHjjXnU3O00MSt3+Sh4EVUl8ZjzcTyCM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730991183; c=relaxed/simple; bh=83E/dXa4P42+y0SvJfMAESOqUaAmNkaaZIy+HaJhrhA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NvG4E4rFa8nR+GhmM5nApkufMwaVTjUe2zfk9ZuwPIZe0a3PJJYUo7jIkrldPtxTTT5BakTsRyrrCZH9xLOU4HXSfA7RAUMmhj/BuJ0xawI5dxMZrJoyWRou00cpTCNk0pKDDXs/m0s3eOSkm8MM/QlrGtStwxY1vy5H1PlLjXg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=linux-watchdog.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-watchdog.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-watchdog.org header.i=@linux-watchdog.org header.b=pRnilHBQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.87.125.42 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=linux-watchdog.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-watchdog.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-watchdog.org header.i=@linux-watchdog.org header.b="pRnilHBQ" Received: by www.linux-watchdog.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8049640A06; Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:25:37 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 www.linux-watchdog.org 8049640A06 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-watchdog.org; s=odk20180602; t=1730989537; bh=83E/dXa4P42+y0SvJfMAESOqUaAmNkaaZIy+HaJhrhA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pRnilHBQt0iyzl64H6q58P2ph6P40VDVnyMBQJBtX47Z2nV6CGcnhWEbd2QJobjL5 yi3UDdQHKDRgP0/rm/f/eTcOmQFV9d+YPTqt6fLzlFzs+/HPUfb4NhbFKsw2O0sLt1 eRU7QH7//ZBfWPgJd87ndB83anmTaGYqppefbnTk= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:25:37 +0100 From: Wim Van Sebroeck To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Stephen Rothwell , Wim Van Sebroeck , Byoungtae Cho , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Sunyeal Hong , Taewan Kim Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the samsung-krzk tree Message-ID: <20241107142537.GA5765@www.linux-watchdog.org> References: <20241107165933.3e8b5af5@canb.auug.org.au> <20241107103708.GB4818@www.linux-watchdog.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Hi Guenter, > On 11/7/24 02:37, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote: > >Hi Krzysztof, > > > >>On 07/11/2024 06:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>>Hi all, > >>> > >>>Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in: > >>> > >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynosautov920.dtsi > >>> > >>>between commit: > >>> > >>> ef1c2a54cbc7 ("arm64: dts: exynosautov920: add peric1, misc and hsi0/1 clock DT nodes") > >>> > >>>from the samsung-krzk tree and commit: > >>> > >>> 3595a523d043 ("arm64: dts: exynosautov920: add watchdog DT node") > >> > >>The main problem is above patch should have never been taken to watchdog > >>tree. I never agreed on that. I never acked it. It is against SoC > >>policies which are always requesting entire DTS to go through SoC tree. > >> > >>Please drop the patch from watchdog. Or revert it. > >> > >>Best regards, > >>Krzysztof > >> > > > >See my other e-mail. Since the 3 patches were about adding a new watchdog driver, I indeed took them in. > >This was reverted and I can only presume that you will take the 3 patches and do the necessary via the SoC tree. > > > > I think the idea was that the watchdog tree would take the driver and > its devicetree property description, and the SoC tree would take the > actual devicetree changes. At least that is what I do in hwmon. That's how it is now. Kind regards, Wim.