On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:09:47PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 20/03/18 14:13, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 04:27:36PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> >>> together with all the patches but the
> >>> PWM (so I had to drop the backlight node as well).
> >>>
> >>> Please coordinate with Andre about who should send the PWM support.
> >>
> >> Seems the patch got broken because only the backlight node but not the
> >> pwm node was removed. Anyway, since Andre has already sent an updated
> >> version of his series, maybe just revert the broken patch, merge his
> >> series and then apply the original teres-i patch again?
> > 
> > Unfortunately, there's dependencies on the PWM driver itself, and the
> > maintainer hasn't replied yet.
> 
> But those dependencies are purely "administrative", not technical,
> aren't they? As the existing driver worked already with the DT changes,
> it's just the listing of the compatible strings in the binding doc that
> is missing? IIRC we added those later on in the past already.
> 
> So I think it's safe to merge them independently:
> "[PATCH v2 1/4] pwm: sun4i: drop unused .has_rdy member" and
> "[PATCH v2 2/4] pwm: sun4i: simplify controller mapping" are
> PWM fixes and go via Thierry, I guess.
> 
> "[PATCH v2 3/4] dt-bindings: pwm: sunxi: add new compatible strings" is
> just Documentation of existing behaviour, and independent from 1/4 and 2/4.
> 
> "[PATCH v2 4/4] dts: sunxi: A64: Add PWM controllers" just "softly"
> depends on the introduction of the compatible strings in 3/4, but has no
> real technical dependency. It can go in any time on its own without
> breaking the build or functionality.
> 
> Or am I too sloppy here?

As far as I know, Thierry never commented on any version of these
patches, so I'd still like to get his review first.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com