Hi Kieran and Geert,
On 2017-06-16 11:30:23 +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Hi Geert, Niklas,
>
> On 16/06/17 09:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Kieran,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Kieran Bingham <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Please consider this pull request for the next renesas-drivers release.
> >>
> >> This DT update is based on Simon's horms/next branch, but is also dependant
> >> upon Niklas' VIN driver DT nodes being integrated.
> >
> > That means "make dtbs" doesn't work in this branch?
> > I think you need to sync with Niklas, so you can build your branch on
> > top of his.
>
> Yes, that's why I tried to make that clear in the PR. sorry - as stupid as it
> was to send as is, - it is dependant upon Niklas' non-mainlined patches, and I
> had to post a pull request for my report for yesterday.
>
> Sorry for the red-tape induced noise :(
>
> Niklas has now made his updated DT branch available to me, so I expect to have
> sent an update before your next renesas-drivers anyway - Although Niklas, your
> rcar-vin-dt branch contains an unrelated [LOCAL] patch to defconfig. So I
> still
> can't base my dt patch on your dt-branch.
I never intended the rcar-vin-dt branch to be submitted for
renesas-drivers (at lest not until the DT bindings where Acked). So I
intentionally left the [LOCAL] patch in that branch, but I agree the
naming is confusing in regard to that...
>
> How should we handle this going forwards?.
If we want to include the DT changes in renesas-driver I be happy to
remove the [LOCAL] patch and pay more attention to details for that
branch and include it in my for-renesas-branch.
Geert what do you think? Do you think it's a good idea for me and Kieran
to start including the DT updates for VIN in our submissions for
renesas-drivers? If so I would like to request a quick sanity check of
my rcar-vin-dt as I'm not sure I fully got the hang of the new DT file
structure and I don't want to break things :-)
>
> I can't really base my DT branch on Niklas' as he is in concurrent active
> development.
>
> Should I pass my DT patch on to you Niklas and consider you 'upstream' for
> that
> patch? (at least in regards to renesas-drivers)
If you like I have no problem to carry that patch in my rcar-vin-dt
branch. Let me know what you wish me to do.
>
> Then we can keep those related changes in one branch. If and when updates
> happen
> on my patch I can just submit them to you to update on your branch. Then we
> have
> a single unified place for the inherently co-dependant DT patches for VIN and
> ADV748x.
>
> If the VIN patches make it upstream before ADV748x bindings are reviewed and
> accepted, then I can take this patch back, as at that point I can base on your
> upstreamed versions.
>
> --
> Kieran
>
>
>
> >
> >> The following changes since commit
> >> ab4321dedd764fb6d8fad3463a93b491aabe669d:
> >>
> >> Merge branches 'arm64-dt-for-v4.13', 'drivers-for-v4.13' and
> >> 'soc-for-v4.13' into next (2017-06-14 11:05:24 +0200)
> >>
> >> are available in the git repository at:
> >>
> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kbingham/rcar.git
> >> adv748x/dt
> >>
> >> for you to fetch changes up to eb130d9433e9cd5b6b0f33715df18697460012ee:
> >>
> >> arm64: dts: renesas: salvator-x: Add ADV7482 support (2017-06-14
> >> 15:46:42 +0100)
> >
> > Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> >
> > Geert
> >
> > --
> > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> > [email protected]
> >
> > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like
> > that.
> > -- Linus Torvalds
> >
--
Regards,
Niklas Söderlund
