Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Add wormdingler dts files

[Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:40 PM Joseph S. Barrera III
<joebar@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Wormdingler is a trogdor-based board, shipping to customers as the
> Lenovo IdeaPad Chromebook Duet 3. These dts files are copies from
> the downstream Chrome OS 5.4 kernel, but with the camera
> (sc7180-trogdor-mipi-camera.dtsi) #include removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joseph S. Barrera III <joebar@chromium.org>
>
> ---
>
> (no changes since v7)
>
> Changes in v7:
> - Incorporated changes from Stephen's "Simplify!" series.
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Replaced _ in node name with -
> - Ordered nodes by name
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Cleaned up rt5682s files
> - Restored camcc definition
> - Added missing version history
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Removed camcc definition
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Word wrapped patch description.
> - Removed "Author" from patch description.
> - Fixed whitespace around "en_pp3300_dx_edp"
>
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile             |   6 +
>  .../sc7180-trogdor-wormdingler-rev0-boe.dts   |  22 +
>  .../sc7180-trogdor-wormdingler-rev0-inx.dts   |  22 +
>  .../qcom/sc7180-trogdor-wormdingler-rev0.dtsi |  53 +++
>  ...0-trogdor-wormdingler-rev1-boe-rt5682s.dts |  29 ++
>  .../sc7180-trogdor-wormdingler-rev1-boe.dts   |  28 ++
>  ...0-trogdor-wormdingler-rev1-inx-rt5682s.dts |  29 ++
>  .../sc7180-trogdor-wormdingler-rev1-inx.dts   |  22 +
>  .../dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-wormdingler.dtsi  | 408 ++++++++++++++++++
>  9 files changed, 619 insertions(+)

Something in this patch series you need to talk about how you relate
to Stephen's two patches, AKA

1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220602190621.1646679-1-swboyd@chromium.org/
- arm64: dts: qcom: Remove duplicate sc7180-trogdor include on
lazor/homestar

2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518172525.3319993-1-swboyd@chromium.org/
- arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180-trogdor: Split out keyboard node and
describe detachables

Probably that should be in a cover letter. At the moment, it looks as
if you are assuming that patch #1 is there but you're assuming patch
#2 _isn't_ there. Is that correct?

-Doug