Date:   Sun, 26 Feb 2023 11:22:48 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
Cc:     Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
        soc@kernel.org, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: omap: add phytec pcm-049 som
 and pcm-959 dev board
Message-ID: <20230226172248.GA47940-robh@kernel.org>
References: <20230222203847.2664903-1-colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
 <20230222203847.2664903-2-colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
 <dd67f7c9-0867-47d0-a201-9316908d9d62@ti.com>
 <Y/eTZONJh8QdJVP8@COLIN-DESKTOP1.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y/eTZONJh8QdJVP8@COLIN-DESKTOP1.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 08:25:08AM -0800, Colin Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:00:50AM -0600, Andrew Davis wrote:
> > On 2/22/23 2:38 PM, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > Add yaml documentation for TI OMAP devices for the Phytec PCM-049 SoM and
> > > the Phytec PCM-959 development kit.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > v4
> > >      * New patch, based on a WIP from Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >   .../devicetree/bindings/arm/ti,omap.yaml      | 29 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > >   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/ti,omap.yaml
> > 
> > How will this work if I add the same file? Why not take my WIP patch, make
> > the suggested changes from Rob, then have it as your first patch in this
> > series?
> 
> Is your WIP intended to convert all omap.txt to ti,omap.yaml? Or chunk
> off devices one at a time?
> 
> If the former, when your patch is done it should be a pretty simple
> rebase conflict resolution. If the latter (which feels more digestable)
> this offers that template. This was Rob's / Tony's suggestion, albeit
> before you sent your patch set.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm happy to do any of the following:
> 
> 1. Take Andrew's patches, add these references and re-submit.
> 2. Keep this set as-is (with the typo fix) and when Andrew's WIP is done
>    it should be an easy rebase before submission.
> 3. Wait for Andrew's WIP to be done, then submit with this update.
> 
> 
> I'd like to avoid #3 because I don't know where this might fall on your
> priorities list.

If you are willing to do #1, that's certainly my preference.

Rob