mbox series

[0/3] ARM: dts: aspeed: Deprecate g[45]-style compatibles

Message ID 20190724081313.12934-1-andrew@aj.id.au (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series ARM: dts: aspeed: Deprecate g[45]-style compatibles | expand

Message

Andrew Jeffery July 24, 2019, 8:13 a.m. UTC 
Hello,

Joel and I decided that going forward we're not going to name compatibles along
the lines of SoC generations, so discourage any further attempts by removing
the remaining instances.

It's probably best if we push the three patches all through one tree rather
than fragmenting. Is everyone happy if Joel applies them to the aspeed tree?

Cheers,

Andrew

Andrew Jeffery (3):
  dts: ARM: aspeed: Migrate away from aspeed,g[45].* compatibles
  pinctrl: aspeed: Document existence of deprecated compatibles
  dt-bindings: aspeed: Remove mention of deprecated compatibles

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/aspeed-scu.txt         | 2 --
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/misc/aspeed-p2a-ctrl.txt   | 2 --
 .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2400-pinctrl.yaml  | 5 +----
 .../devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/aspeed,ast2500-pinctrl.yaml  | 4 +---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g4.dtsi                             | 2 +-
 arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g5.dtsi                             | 2 +-
 drivers/pinctrl/aspeed/pinctrl-aspeed-g4.c                   | 4 ++++
 drivers/pinctrl/aspeed/pinctrl-aspeed-g5.c                   | 4 ++++
 8 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Comments

Linus Walleij July 29, 2019, 9:53 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:

> It's probably best if we push the three patches all through one tree rather
> than fragmenting. Is everyone happy if Joel applies them to the aspeed tree?

If you are sure it will not collide with parallell work in the
pinctrl tree, yes.
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

(If it does collide I'd prefer to take the pinctrl patches and fix the
conflicts in my tree.)

Yours,
Linus Walleij
Andrew Jeffery July 30, 2019, 12:57 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 07:23, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > It's probably best if we push the three patches all through one tree rather
> > than fragmenting. Is everyone happy if Joel applies them to the aspeed tree?
> 
> If you are sure it will not collide with parallell work in the
> pinctrl tree, yes.
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> 
> (If it does collide I'd prefer to take the pinctrl patches and fix the
> conflicts in my tree.)

Fair enough, I don't know the answer so I'll poke around. I don't really mind
where the series goes in, I just want to avoid landing only part of it if I split it up.

Andrew
Andrew Jeffery Aug. 1, 2019, 5:45 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 10:27, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 07:23, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > It's probably best if we push the three patches all through one tree rather
> > > than fragmenting. Is everyone happy if Joel applies them to the aspeed tree?
> > 
> > If you are sure it will not collide with parallell work in the
> > pinctrl tree, yes.
> > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > 
> > (If it does collide I'd prefer to take the pinctrl patches and fix the
> > conflicts in my tree.)
> 
> Fair enough, I don't know the answer so I'll poke around. I don't 
> really mind
> where the series goes in, I just want to avoid landing only part of it 
> if I split it up.

Okay, it currently conflicts with my cleanup-devicetree-warnings series.

Joel, do you mind if Linus takes this series through the pinctrl tree, given
the fix to the devicetrees is patch 1/3?

Andrew
Joel Stanley Aug. 2, 2019, 6:15 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 10:27, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, at 07:23, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's probably best if we push the three patches all through one tree rather
> > > > than fragmenting. Is everyone happy if Joel applies them to the aspeed tree?
> > >
> > > If you are sure it will not collide with parallell work in the
> > > pinctrl tree, yes.
> > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > (If it does collide I'd prefer to take the pinctrl patches and fix the
> > > conflicts in my tree.)
> >
> > Fair enough, I don't know the answer so I'll poke around. I don't
> > really mind
> > where the series goes in, I just want to avoid landing only part of it
> > if I split it up.
>
> Okay, it currently conflicts with my cleanup-devicetree-warnings series.
>
> Joel, do you mind if Linus takes this series through the pinctrl tree, given
> the fix to the devicetrees is patch 1/3?

It depends if you plan more changes to that part of the device tree
this merge window :)

Linus, perhaps the safer option is for me to take 1/3 through my tree
and you can take the rest through yours?

Cheers,

Joel
Linus Walleij Aug. 5, 2019, 10:45 a.m. UTC | #5 
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:15 AM Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> wrote:

> > Joel, do you mind if Linus takes this series through the pinctrl tree, given
> > the fix to the devicetrees is patch 1/3?
>
> It depends if you plan more changes to that part of the device tree
> this merge window :)
>
> Linus, perhaps the safer option is for me to take 1/3 through my tree
> and you can take the rest through yours?

OK let's proceed like that.

Yours,
Linus Walleij