[GIT PULL] arm64: dts: updates for v5.17

[Matthias Brugger]

On 30/12/2021 02:40, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matthias Brugger
> <matthias.bgg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 17:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Matthias Brugger <mbrugger at suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look on the below patches for aarch64 based MediaTek boards.
>>>> In this round we add support for the mt8183 based Acer Crhomebook 314, as well
>>>> as we add support to several SKUs for mt8183 based Chromebooks.
>>>> Apart from that we add basic support to the mt7986 in both variants (mt7986a,
>>>> mt7986b). The difference between the both SoCs are the pin-controller capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Hope you are fine with this pull request.
>>>
>>> I've pulled both tags, but I have two minor comments:
>>>
>>> - please put "mediatek" into the subject, that helps when looking at
>>> the pull requests
>>>     with pwclient, which does not show the author by default
>>>
>>
>> I did this pull request with a lot of time pressure and forgot about it. My
>> apologies, I'll try to not forget next time.
>>
>>> - I was expecting you to send a branch for the new EN7523 SoC as well. Did that
>>>     end up not making it in time?
>>>
>>
>> As I have seen, in the meantime you reviewed some parts yourself. I took the
>> first two patches in my tree, but we should coordinate for the rest. If  you
>> want to take it through the SOC tree or if I should take it through the mediatek
>> tree. As Airoha is a subsidiary of MediaTek, I suppose in the long run, you want
>> it do be part of the Mediatek tree, correct?
> 
> I talked to Felix about it last week, I think it would be best if you handle the
> arch/{arm,arm64}/ bits for Airoha as part of the mach-mediatek and merge
> changes the same way as the mt76xx, mt69xx and mt81xx series. For the
> initial submission, of en7623, having a single branch that contains both
> the arch/* and drivers/* with the appropriate Acks would make the most
> sense, to avoid spreading it out over multiple merge windows, though it's
> not too late for 5.17.
> 

Sounds good. Although it's still not clear to me, if you want to take the 
initial submission or if I should take that.

And I understand that it's a typo and we are too late for 5.17 given that we are 
in v5.16-rc7 already. Anyway I had some comments on the arm bits and we are 
still lacking the Acked-by for the clock driver.

Regards,
Matthias