From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756834AbcH2IeQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 04:34:16 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:50792 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756125AbcH2IeP (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 04:34:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:33:50 +0800 From: Shawn Guo To: Borislav Petkov Cc: York Sun , Mark Rutland , yangbo lu , Liu Gang , morbidrsa@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Arnd Bergmann , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Bhupesh Sharma , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , stuart.yoder@nxp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, oss@buserror.net, Rob Herring , Rajesh Bhagat , Olof Johansson , Mingkai Hu , Li Yang , Yuan Yao , linux-edac@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch v4 9/9] arm64: Update device tree for Layerscape SoCs Message-ID: <20160829083350.GL30790@tiger> References: <1470780000-16750-1-git-send-email-york.sun@nxp.com> <20160812091354.GB333@nazgul.tnic> <20160829063448.GA32489@tiger> <20160829080530.GA25468@nazgul.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160829080530.GA25468@nazgul.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:05:30AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:34:48PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Is it mandatory to have DTS changes go with driver part altogether? > > Yes, because the EDAC driver needs them to even load properly. When separate branches get merged on Linus tree, it works anyway. > > > Otherwise, I prefer to have them go through separate tree. > > Any particular reason why you prefer that? To avoid potential merge conflicts. Unless there are hard dependencies like making it compile, avoiding regression or maintaining bisect, patches should go through their established subsystem/architecture tree. > We've been doing this for other ARM EDAC drivers already and there were > no issues whatsoever. Luckily. If there are many patches on architecture DT branch changing the same file, when driver branch and DT branch merges in upstream branch, there will likely be merge conflicts. Shawn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shawn Guo Subject: Re: [Patch v4 9/9] arm64: Update device tree for Layerscape SoCs Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:33:50 +0800 Message-ID: <20160829083350.GL30790@tiger> References: <1470780000-16750-1-git-send-email-york.sun@nxp.com> <20160812091354.GB333@nazgul.tnic> <20160829063448.GA32489@tiger> <20160829080530.GA25468@nazgul.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160829080530.GA25468-K5JNixvcfoxupOikMc4+xw@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: York Sun , Mark Rutland , yangbo lu , Liu Gang , morbidrsa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Bhupesh Sharma , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , stuart.yoder-3arQi8VN3Tc@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, oss-fOR+EgIDQEHk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Rajesh Bhagat , Olof Johansson , Mingkai Hu , Li Yang , Yuan Yao , linux-edac-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:05:30AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:34:48PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Is it mandatory to have DTS changes go with driver part altogether? > > Yes, because the EDAC driver needs them to even load properly. When separate branches get merged on Linus tree, it works anyway. > > > Otherwise, I prefer to have them go through separate tree. > > Any particular reason why you prefer that? To avoid potential merge conflicts. Unless there are hard dependencies like making it compile, avoiding regression or maintaining bisect, patches should go through their established subsystem/architecture tree. > We've been doing this for other ARM EDAC drivers already and there were > no issues whatsoever. Luckily. If there are many patches on architecture DT branch changing the same file, when driver branch and DT branch merges in upstream branch, there will likely be merge conflicts. Shawn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shawnguo@kernel.org (Shawn Guo) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:33:50 +0800 Subject: [Patch v4 9/9] arm64: Update device tree for Layerscape SoCs In-Reply-To: <20160829080530.GA25468@nazgul.tnic> References: <1470780000-16750-1-git-send-email-york.sun@nxp.com> <20160812091354.GB333@nazgul.tnic> <20160829063448.GA32489@tiger> <20160829080530.GA25468@nazgul.tnic> Message-ID: <20160829083350.GL30790@tiger> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:05:30AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:34:48PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Is it mandatory to have DTS changes go with driver part altogether? > > Yes, because the EDAC driver needs them to even load properly. When separate branches get merged on Linus tree, it works anyway. > > > Otherwise, I prefer to have them go through separate tree. > > Any particular reason why you prefer that? To avoid potential merge conflicts. Unless there are hard dependencies like making it compile, avoiding regression or maintaining bisect, patches should go through their established subsystem/architecture tree. > We've been doing this for other ARM EDAC drivers already and there were > no issues whatsoever. Luckily. If there are many patches on architecture DT branch changing the same file, when driver branch and DT branch merges in upstream branch, there will likely be merge conflicts. Shawn