Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] dt-bindings: pwm: rockchip: Add rockchip,rk3562-pwm

Uwe Kleine-König
2025-01-10T10:22:00Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 06:09:24PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
> Hi Uwe,
>
>     Thanks very much for your review.
>
> On 2024/12/27 15:24, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:49:14PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
> > > Add rockchip,rk3562-pwm compatible string.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kever Yang<kever.yang@rock-chips.com>
> > What is your merge plan here? From my POV merging the pwm update via my
> > pwm tree would be the easiest. But if you want to let it go via (say)
> > arm-soc to have it all in a single tree soon and then base new
> > development on top of that, that would be fine for me, too.
> I send this in a patch set for a new soc and board because there is
> no driver change needed, and I think it would be more clear for the new soc
> support. It will be great if maintainers like you can pick the patches
> for the module which I guess is preferred way in the kernel maintain rule?
> Or else I have to follow the comments fromKrzysztof to send patches one
> by one separately.

Sometimes it's sensible to let a complete machine/SoC support go in
together via a single tree, but if there are no such necessities, that's
fine for me.

In that case it's a good idea to explicitly mention dependencies between
the patches in the cover letter and ask for individual application.

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]