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>
 <CA+h21hok4V_-uarhnyBkdXqnwRdXpgRJWLSvuuVn8K3VRMtrcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200224084826.GE27688@dragon> <CA+h21hop_veYT7Ru6os2iqPV_tO+6vkZPo6sqgVf9GcNAsjWuw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+h21hop_veYT7Ru6os2iqPV_tO+6vkZPo6sqgVf9GcNAsjWuw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:51:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+h21hr_VpU1yMNat7M=J35cQ__LB69YNvXXsuxg+t4zQS4WkA@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

On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 10:50, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 10:48, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > The dt-bindings patch is supposed to go through subsystem tree together
> > with driver changes by nature.  That said, patch #1 and #2 are for
> > David, and I will pick up the rest (DTS ones).
> >
> > Shawn
>
> Ok, any further comments on the series or should I respin after your
> feedback regarding the commit message prefix and the status =
> "disabled" ordering?
>
> -Vladimir

By the way all your comments have been on v2 and I've sent v3 already.
So this series is superseded.

Regards,
-Vladimir