[PATCH 2/5] ARM: BCM5301X: Add DT for Netgear R6300 V2

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 03 December 2014 09:40:40 Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 06:59 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > On 3 December 2014 at 00:15, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
> >> On 11/30/2014 06:28 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile                     |  4 +-
> >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dts | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dts
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
> >>> index 35f3e12..22bb87f 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
> >>> @@ -55,7 +55,9 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ATLAS6) += atlas6-evb.dtb
> >>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_AXXIA) += axm5516-amarillo.dtb
> >>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM2835) += bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
> >>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM2835) += bcm2835-rpi-b-plus.dtb
> >>> -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_5301X) += bcm4708-netgear-r6250.dtb
> >>> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_5301X) += \
> >>> +     bcm4708-netgear-r6250.dtb \
> >>> +     bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dtb
> >>
> >> This part does not apply cleanly on top of v3.18-rc1.
> > 
> > I think we want these changes to be merged merged into the arm-soc.git
> > next/dt, right? So I based my changes on that tree. This way Arnd
> > won't get neither: any conflicts or any unwanted stuff.
> 
> Arnd wants the changes based on -rc1, at least the last time.  The
> merge gets ugly if the changes are based on different versions.

If you send multiple pull requests for the same release and the same
topic branch (e.g. next/dt), you can choose to base on top of -rc1
or a prior branch as you like.

You can also have a cleanup branch based on -rc1 that you send first,
and then send other patches based on top of that. This makes sense
in particular when you have patches for multiple branches (e.g. next/soc
and next/drivers) but also want to restructure your code to make it
easier to apply those.

Any patches for next/cleanup should be cosmetic only and rearrange stuff
but not do functional changes.

> >>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_63XX) += bcm963138dvt.dtb
> >>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_CYGNUS) += bcm911360_entphn.dtb \
> >>>       bcm911360k.dtb \
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dts
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000..e18b636
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-netgear-r6300-v2.dts
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Broadcom BCM470X / BCM5301X ARM platform code.
> >>> + * DTS for Netgear R6300 V2
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Copyright © 2014 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Is this © needed here?
> > 
> > Do you mean the whole line or the "©" sign? I think we usually have
> > "Copyright" lines in files. I can see using "©" is much less common on
> > the other hand. I think the most common forms are
> > 1) Copyright (C) <year>
> > 2) Copyright <year>
> > Should I use some of them?
> > Btw. do you know if this documented anywhere?
> > 
> It was just the  "©" sign, it's usage is pretty uncommon and I think it
> is not an ASCII symbol. I would like if you choose 1 or 2, what exactly
> does not matter for me.

If you work for a large company, ask your legal department, they may
have a strong opinion on this matter one way or another. If you don't
work for a large company, don't worry about it.

	Arnd