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

[Guenter Roeck]

On 12/6/21 11:13 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 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?
> 

Your series includes the patch discussed here, and it is the first patch
of your series. The second patch in your series depends on it. Are you
telling me that I should drop those two patches from your series ?

For reference, the patches are

079a2959e68b dt-bindings: watchdog: Add BCM6345 compatible to BCM7038 binding
a5b2ebc8f6e6 dt-bindings: watchdog: convert Broadcom's WDT to the json-schema

in my watchdog-next branch.

Guenter