Re: [GIT PULL 1/4] dt-bindings: Changes for v6.20-rc1

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-01-23T07:43:48Z

On 22/01/2026 13:20, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 at 11:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 09:03:00AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>> The following changes since commit 8f0b4cce4481fb22653697cced8d0d04027cb1e8:
>>>>
>>>> Linux 6.19-rc1 (2025-12-14 16:05:07 +1200)
>>>>
>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>>
>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git tags/tegra-for-6.20-dt-bindings
>>>>
>>>> for you to fetch changes up to b2788f6320722d6059f849f35a77eb082608c627:
>>>>
>>>> ASoC: dt-bindings: realtek,rt5640: Document port node (2026-01-17 01:58:18 +0100)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thierry
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> dt-bindings: Changes for v6.20-rc1
>>>>
>>>> This series updates various DT bindings for Tegra architecture,
>>>> primarily focusing on schema validation fixes and new feature
>>>> documentation for Tegra234 and Tegra264 SoCs. Key changes include
>>>> correcting realtek,rt5640 audio codec bindings (adding missing ports,
>>>> clocks, and jack-detect sources), converting Tegra20 NAND bindings to
>>>> YAML, and updating memory, DMA, and IOMMU definitions for Tegra264
>>>> (introducing CMDQV and DBB clock support). Additionally, it resolves
>>>> legacy warnings for Tegra30/132 display and VI interfaces.
>>>
>>> Same comment as was for Geert, I am surprised to see DT bindings as
>>> separate pull and I see drivers were alerady merged, so I will defer
>>> entire Tegra pull to Arnd.
>>
>> The soc tree used to have a separate branch for dt-bindings.
>> Hence several soc submaintainers still use that split for their PRs.
>
> Yeah. I usually also only put things in the PR for ARM SoC that have no
> related driver changes (fixups, conversions, ...) and therefore nobody
> else feels responsible for picking up.

Why these are still separate? There are few options here:
1. These were needed by the drivers you sent in pull: should be in that
driver pull. It seems Geert confirmed this was the case with Renesas.
BTW, checkpatch asks for that somewhat - you will have checkpatch
warning of undocumented compatibles and you are not suppose to have such
warnings.

2. These were needed by the new DTS you sent in pull: should be in that
DTS pull.

3. These were not needed by anything yet or they document compatibles
already in the tree: that's the only case I imagine having them on
separate branch. You can take such bindings when subsystem maintainers
do not - they ignore them. 90% of bindings in this pull are not like that!

I will respond to that as well in separate email.

Best regards,
Krzysztof