Hi,
DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Krzysztof Kozlowski (4):
dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi.dtsi | 2 +-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor.dtsi | 2 +-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r0.dts | 2 +-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine.dtsi | 2 +-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp-ec-h1.dtsi | 2 +-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi | 2 +-
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-gru-chromebook.dtsi | 2 +-
9 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--
2.32.0
Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
the old name in bindings as deprecated.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
.../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml
index d1f53bd449f7..0255b7028496 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml
@@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ properties:
ec-pwm:
$ref: "/schemas/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml#"
+ deprecated: true
+
+ pwm:
+ $ref: "/schemas/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml#"
keyboard-controller:
$ref: "/schemas/input/google,cros-ec-keyb.yaml#"
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml
index 4cfbffd8414a..7ab6912a845f 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml
@@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ description: |
An EC PWM node should be only found as a sub-node of the EC node (see
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml).
+allOf:
+ - $ref: pwm.yaml#
+
properties:
compatible:
const: google,cros-ec-pwm
@@ -39,7 +42,7 @@ examples:
compatible = "google,cros-ec-spi";
reg = <0>;
- cros_ec_pwm: ec-pwm {
+ cros_ec_pwm: pwm {
compatible = "google,cros-ec-pwm";
#pwm-cells = <1>;
};
--
2.32.0
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
> depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
> Krzysztof Kozlowski (4):
> dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
> arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
commit: 474a84be692d893f45a54b405dcbc137cbf77949
Best regards,
--
Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:13 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> the old name in bindings as deprecated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:27:08AM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
> > depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski (4):
> > dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
> > arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> > arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> > arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> >
> > [...]
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> commit: 474a84be692d893f45a54b405dcbc137cbf77949
I expected that all patches in this series go in together via an ARM
tree. Or are there expectations that this goes via PWM?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> the old name in bindings as deprecated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On 23/02/2022 07:22, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:27:08AM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
>>> depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski (4):
>>> dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
>>> arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
>>> arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
>>> arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
>> commit: 474a84be692d893f45a54b405dcbc137cbf77949
>
> I expected that all patches in this series go in together via an ARM
> tree. Or are there expectations that this goes via PWM?
I would propose to pick individual patches by each maintainer. bindings
by PWM tree (Rob acked it) and DTS via each SoC tree.
Such approach gives flexibility, although `make dtbs_check` will spot
the new errors when run in PWM tree. Next will be fine, though.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi Lee,
Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
> > Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> > the old name in bindings as deprecated.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
>
> Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
what is your expectation regarding this patch?
Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through
some other tree?
The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old
node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory
this patch should be able to be applied on its own without
causing defects.
Heiko
>
> > .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>
On 24/02/2022 11:06, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2022, 11:02:48 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lee,
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
>>>>> the old name in bindings as deprecated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> what is your expectation regarding this patch?
>>>
>>> Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through
>>> some other tree?
>>>
>>> The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old
>>> node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory
>>> this patch should be able to be applied on its own without
>>> causing defects.
>>
>> In an ideal world, it would be broken up and I would take the MFD
>> part. Is that possible or are there dependencies?
>
> That is also what Krzysztof had in mind - see his reply to patch4.
> Binding going through the MFD tree and soc maintainers applying
> the individual dts patches.
>
> As written the binding change is backward compatible, so no harm.
>
> I was just confused by the "Acked-by" and wanted to clarify how you
> see it ;-)
>
The bindings patch should not be split more, but itself can be taken
alone. DTS patches can go via SoC maintainer trees.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >
> > > Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> > > the old name in bindings as deprecated.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> >
> > Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
>
> what is your expectation regarding this patch?
>
> Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through
> some other tree?
>
> The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old
> node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory
> this patch should be able to be applied on its own without
> causing defects.
In an ideal world, it would be broken up and I would take the MFD
part. Is that possible or are there dependencies?
Or, worse still, does the whole set need to be applied at once?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2022, 11:02:48 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
>
> > Hi Lee,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > > Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> > > > the old name in bindings as deprecated.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> >
> > what is your expectation regarding this patch?
> >
> > Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through
> > some other tree?
> >
> > The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old
> > node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory
> > this patch should be able to be applied on its own without
> > causing defects.
>
> In an ideal world, it would be broken up and I would take the MFD
> part. Is that possible or are there dependencies?
That is also what Krzysztof had in mind - see his reply to patch4.
Binding going through the MFD tree and soc maintainers applying
the individual dts patches.
As written the binding change is backward compatible, so no harm.
I was just confused by the "Acked-by" and wanted to clarify how you
see it ;-)
Heiko
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:19:13AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> the old name in bindings as deprecated.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Applied, thanks.
Thierry
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:19:13AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> > the old name in bindings as deprecated.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> > .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/google,cros-ec-pwm.yaml | 5 ++++-
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Applied, thanks.
Super, thanks T.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/02/2022 11:06, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2022, 11:02:48 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> >> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Lee,
> >>>
> >>> Am Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2022, 10:16:01 CET schrieb Lee Jones:
> >>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Include generic pwm.yaml schema, which enforces PWM node naming. Keep
> >>>>> the old name in bindings as deprecated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/google,cros-ec.yaml | 4 ++++
> >>>>
> >>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> what is your expectation regarding this patch?
> >>>
> >>> Are you planning to merge it or are you expecting this to go through
> >>> some other tree?
> >>>
> >>> The binding-change here is backward-comaptible in that the old
> >>> node-name is still in it, only marked as deprecated, so in theory
> >>> this patch should be able to be applied on its own without
> >>> causing defects.
> >>
> >> In an ideal world, it would be broken up and I would take the MFD
> >> part. Is that possible or are there dependencies?
> >
> > That is also what Krzysztof had in mind - see his reply to patch4.
> > Binding going through the MFD tree and soc maintainers applying
> > the individual dts patches.
> >
> > As written the binding change is backward compatible, so no harm.
> >
> > I was just confused by the "Acked-by" and wanted to clarify how you
> > see it ;-)
> >
>
> The bindings patch should not be split more, but itself can be taken
> alone. DTS patches can go via SoC maintainer trees.
So in answer to Heiko's question, either Thierry, Rob or I can take
the patch. I'm not overly fussed which. If I am to take it, I need
Thierry's go-ahead and info on whether he requires a PR or not.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Hello:
This series was applied to chrome-platform/linux.git (for-next)
by Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100 you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
> depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/6b94ee669e8a
- [2/4] arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
(no matching commit)
- [3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/1e49defb8636
- [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/a0024f55eb5b
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
Hello:
This series was applied to chrome-platform/linux.git (for-kernelci)
by Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100 you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
> depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/6b94ee669e8a
- [2/4] arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
(no matching commit)
- [3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/1e49defb8636
- [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/a0024f55eb5b
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
Hi Heiko,
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> Am Montag, 4. April 2022, 19:14:21 CEST schrieb [email protected]:
> > Hello:
> >
> > This series was applied to chrome-platform/linux.git (for-next)
> > by Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>:
>
> does someone know what goes on here?
>
> I did apply only patch4 back in feburary and I definitly don't have any
> access to a chrome-platform tree ;-)
>
Sorry for the extra noise. It looks like patchwork-bot did this once I updated
chrome-platform's for-next branch to the newly created v5.18-rc1, which
contains this series now.
I'll look into quieting this in the future.
Benson
>
> Heiko
>
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100 you wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
> > > depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Krzysztof
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Here is the summary with links:
> > - [1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
> > https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/6b94ee669e8a
> > - [2/4] arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> > (no matching commit)
> > - [3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> > https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/1e49defb8636
> > - [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> > https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/a0024f55eb5b
> >
> > You are awesome, thank you!
> >
>
>
>
>
--
Benson Leung
Staff Software Engineer
Chrome OS Kernel
Google Inc.
[email protected]
Chromium OS Project
[email protected]
Am Montag, 4. April 2022, 19:14:21 CEST schrieb [email protected]:
> Hello:
>
> This series was applied to chrome-platform/linux.git (for-next)
> by Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>:
does someone know what goes on here?
I did apply only patch4 back in feburary and I definitly don't have any
access to a chrome-platform tree ;-)
Heiko
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:19:12 +0100 you wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > DTS patches are independent. Not tested, but I really hope no downstream kernel
> > depends on pwm node naming... If it does, please change it to compatible. :)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >
> > [...]
>
> Here is the summary with links:
> - [1/4] dt-bindings: pwm: google,cros-ec: include generic pwm schema
> https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/6b94ee669e8a
> - [2/4] arm64: dts: mt8183: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> (no matching commit)
> - [3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/1e49defb8636
> - [4/4] arm64: dts: rk3399: align Google CROS EC PWM node name with dtschema
> https://git.kernel.org/chrome-platform/c/a0024f55eb5b
>
> You are awesome, thank you!
>