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

[Florian Fainelli]

On 12/6/21 11:37 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 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 ?

No, quite the contrary, I want you to keep the entire 7 patches that
converted the bcm7038-wdt binding to YAML and get rid of the bcm63xx-wdt
changes, the branch that you have right now is good in that regard.

I don't see why you should be creating an immutable branch for Lee and
not simply merge Rafal's "[PATCH V4 RESEND 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: add
Broadcom's Timer-Watchdog block" patch with Lee's ack directly. This is
a new file, so I don't see how it would create conflicts as long as we
don't pile up changes on top.
-- 
Florian