Re: (subset) [PATCH v4 0/3] dt-bindings: phy: Convert TI OMAP control and PIPE3 PHY to DT schema

From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To: Charan Pedumuru <charan.pedumuru@gmail.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@iki.fi>,
	Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	Roger Quadros <rogerq@kernel.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com>,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v4 0/3] dt-bindings: phy: Convert TI OMAP control and PIPE3 PHY to DT schema
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 21:00:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260213190054.ezblztj3blmhtywr@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f60156a6-58af-4548-9dc3-71c71b822343@gmail.com>

Hi Charan,

On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 10:06:16PM +0530, Charan Pedumuru wrote:
> On 04-02-2026 21:14, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 15:39:01 +0000, Charan Pedumuru wrote:
> >> This series converts the old text-based DeviceTree bindings for TI OMAP
> >> Control PHY and TI PIPE3 PHY to modern JSON-schema (YAML) format.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!
> > 
> > [2/3] dt-bindings: phy: ti,phy-usb3: convert to DT schema
> >       commit: 62c9ff8fc20d23c0dc36be1330734fdafb3e8585
> > [3/3] dt-bindings: phy: ti,control-phy-otghs: convert to DT schema
> >       commit: 7878306d182a1750583a325a29e5ccab9ce0235b
> 
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> You missed to apply the first patch which has DT node pattern changes
> and now this dtb check fails in linux-next as these YAML patches use
> the updated node pattern. I got a report of errors from kernel test
> robot.

If there was any request formulated to Vinod to pick up patch 1, then I
also missed it while reading this series.

Usually, dt-bindings patches are picked up by the subsystem maintainer
while DTS patches are picked up by the platform maintainer. If you know
that there is any dependency then it would greatly help if you could
mention that upfront, or even specify how you expect the patches to be
merged.

In this case, I expect the warnings will get eventually resolved when
Kevin picks up patch 1.

To avoid warnings from being introduced in the first place, you could
have
- requested all patches to be taken through a single tree (requires
  maintainer coordination with ACK from the other one, more complicated
  if the files touched are under heavy development)
- requested a stable tag from the first maintainer, to be pulled in the
  second tree
- send patch 1, wait for a merge window to pass, send patches 2-3

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy