[PATCH V4 RESEND 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/6/21 11:10 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal at milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This helps validating DTS files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal at milecki.pl>
>>>>>>>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here:
>>>>>>> watchdog
>>>>>>> & MFD).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>> it queued for Linus?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the requirement for these to be merged together?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make
>>>>> dt_binding_check"
>>>>> may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
>>>>> by "dt_binding_check".
>>>>
>>>> In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
>>>> all interconnected document changes to go in together?
>>>
>>> The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02
>>>
>>>
>>> and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
>>> take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.
>>
>> If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.
>>
> 
> I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
> but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
> that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
> the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
> otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
> and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.

There is simply no rush in getting the bcm7038-wdt driver to support
4908 *just now*, so why don't you just take the bcm63xx-wdt series that
I posed, and Rafal posts an updated series that adds support for the
4908 watchdog for the 5.18 cycle?
-- 
Florian