Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200219151259.14273-1-olteanv@gmail.com> <20200224063154.GK27688@dragon>
In-Reply-To: <20200224063154.GK27688@dragon>
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:59:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+h21hok4V_-uarhnyBkdXqnwRdXpgRJWLSvuuVn8K3VRMtrcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next/devicetree 0/5] DT bindings for Felix DSA
 switch on LS1028A
To:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Shawn,

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 08:32, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> >
> > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the
> > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire
> > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree.
>
> Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any
> issue like build breakage or regression on either tree?  Otherwise, I do
> not see the series needs to go in through a single tree.
>
> Shawn
>

No, the point is that I've made some changes in the device tree
bindings validation in the driver, which make the driver without those
changes incompatible with the bindings themselves that I'm
introducing. So I would like the driver to be operational on the
actual commit that introduces the bindings, at least in your tree. I
don't expect merge conflicts to occur in that area of the code.

Thanks,
-Vladimir