Re: (subset) [PATCH 00/17] dt-bindings: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC

Thierry Reding
2023-12-05T12:36:18Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1648 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:58:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:49:23PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:43:26 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > Merging
> > > =======
> > > I propose to take entire patchset through my tree (Samsung SoC), because:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > > 1. Next cycle two new SoCs will be coming (Google GS101 and ExynosAutov920), so
> > > they will touch the same lines in some of the DT bindings (not all, though).
> > > It is reasonable for me to take the bindings for the new SoCs, to have clean
> > > `make dtbs_check` on the new DTS.
> > > 2. Having it together helps me to have clean `make dtbs_check` within my tree
> > > on the existing DTS.
> > > 3. No drivers are affected by this change.
> > > 4. I plan to do the same for Tesla FSD and Exynos ARM32 SoCs, thus expect
> > > follow up patchsets.
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > [12/17] dt-bindings: pwm: samsung: add specific compatibles for existing SoC
> > commit: 5d67b8f81b9d598599366214e3b2eb5f84003c9f
>
> You didn't honor (or even comment) Krzysztof's proposal to take the
> whole patchset via his tree (marked above). Was there some off-list
> agreement?

I had read all that and then looking at patchwork saw that you had
marked all other patches in the series as "handled-elsewhere" and only
this one was left as "new", so I assumed that, well, everything else was
handled elsewhere and I was supposed to pick this one up...

I'll drop this one.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]