On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:59:49PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 7:39 AM Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:05:39PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:30 AM Sharat Masetty <smase...@codeaurora.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch simply adds a new compatible string for SC7180 platform. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sharat Masetty <smase...@codeaurora.org> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 1 + > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > > index 6515dbe..986098b 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml > > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ properties: > > > > - enum: > > > > - qcom,msm8996-smmu-v2 > > > > - qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2 > > > > + - qcom,sc7180-smmu-v2 > > > > - qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2 > > > > - const: qcom,smmu-v2 > > > > > > Is anything blocking this patch from landing now? > > > > I thought updates to the bindings usually went via Rob and the device-tree > > tree, but neither of those are on cc. > > > > Perhaps resend with that fixed? > > Ah, I guess I wasn't familiar with how things worked for this file, or > maybe things have changed recently? I'm used to most bindings going > through the same tree as the drivers that use them. Usually if things > are at all complicated maintainers wait for an Ack from Rob (so he > should have been CCed for sure) and then land.
Just to clear this up: I'm happy to take DT stuff like this, but preferably with Rob's ack so that I know that (a) it's not a load of rubbish and (b) it probably won't conflict with his tree. So having the DT folks omitted from the CC list just rings alarm bells for me. > In this case it actually looks like Bjorn landed it in the Qualcomm > and I just didn't realize it. That seems like it should be fine since > it's in the middle of a clause that's all Qualcomm and the change > shouldn't be controversial in any way. :-) Ok! Will _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
