On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 06:39:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:48:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > Each memory client has unique hardware ID, add these IDs.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/dt-bindings/memory/tegra20-mc.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
> > 
> > Is there any chance you could drop these dt-bindings include patches
> > (17, 18 and 19) so that I can pick them up into the Tegra tree? The
> > device tree changes that I was going to pick up depend on this and
> > fail to build if applied as-is.
> > 
> > I was looking at your linux-mem-ctrl tree and had initially thought I
> > could just pull in one of the branches to get these dependencies, but it
> > looks like the dt-bindings patches are on the for-v5.11/tegra-mc branch,
> > which the ARM SoC maintainers wouldn't like to see me pull in for a
> > dependency on device tree changes.
> 
> Partially you answered here. :) Since you should not pull my branch into
> a DT branch, you also should not put these include/dt-bindings patches
> there.  SoC guys will complain about this as well.
> 
> These patches are also needed for the driver, so if you take them, I
> would need them back in a pull request. SoC folks could spot it as well
> and point that such merge should not happen.
> 
> > If this is all fixed at this point, I'll just have to push back the
> > device tree changes to v5.12, or perhaps see if the ARM SoC maintainers
> > are willing to take a late pull request that's based on v5.11-rc1.
> 
> Yeah, that's a known problem. I asked about this Arnd and Olof in the
> past and got reply with two solutions:
> 1. Apply current version of patch without defines, just hard-coded
>    numbers. After merging to Linus, replace the numbers with defines.
> 
> 2. Wait with DTS till dependencies reach Linus.

What I've done occasionally in the past was to put these kinds of
patches into a separate "dt-bindings" branch that I could use to resolve
dependencies from device tree files. The ARM SoC maintainers never had
any issues with that approach.

I guess this is a bit of a special case, because the DT includes are
ultimately really a part of the device tree, so mixing them both isn't
problematic.

Thierry