Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-27191-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:38:39 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, <jyri.sarha@iki.fi>,
	<tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>, <airlied@gmail.com>, <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	<maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, <mripard@kernel.org>,
	<tzimmermann@suse.de>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <praneeth@ti.com>, <nm@ti.com>,
	<vigneshr@ti.com>, <a-bhatia1@ti.com>, <j-luthra@ti.com>, <kristo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: Add common1 register
 space for AM62x and AM65x SoCs
Message-ID: <20240116-spending-famished-5a5e407d02bb@wendy>
References: <20240115125716.560363-1-devarsht@ti.com>
 <20240115125716.560363-3-devarsht@ti.com>
 <20240115-penpal-pluck-d156ccf21b2f@spud>
 <4c5cb4ed-96a3-7bd8-f660-2a3bb041ca09@ti.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BC6FFMzhPnkn64Jt"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4c5cb4ed-96a3-7bd8-f660-2a3bb041ca09@ti.com>

--BC6FFMzhPnkn64Jt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:48:53PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> Hi Conor,
>=20
> Thanks for the review.
>=20
> On 15/01/24 21:44, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 06:27:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> >> This adds common1 register space for AM62x and AM65x SoC's which are u=
sing
> >> TI's Keystone display hardware and supporting it as described in
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ti/ti,am65x-dss.yaml.
> >>
> >> This region is documented in respective Technical Reference Manuals [1=
].
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >> AM62x TRM:
> >> https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 (Section 14.8.9.1 DSS Registers)
> >>
> >> AM65x TRM:
> >> https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruid7 (Section 12.6.5 DSS Registers)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >=20
> > "[DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2]" but no rationale here as to why this cannot
> > be merged? What's the problem with it?
> >=20
>=20
> No problem as such from my point of view, but this is the process I follow
> since maintainer trees for device-tree file and bindings are different. I
> generally mark a [DO NOT MERGE] tag for device-tree file patches until bi=
nding
> patch gets merged so that the device-tree patches don't get applied by mi=
stake
> if binding patch has some pending comments.
>=20
> Once binding patch gets merged, I re-send the device-tree file patches ag=
ain
> to respective list.

I see. Please note this in your patches, under the --- line, in the
future to avoid confusion.

--BC6FFMzhPnkn64Jt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZaZOnwAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0rJvAP4y1i7FM56Lm+nbXDP54G7/zOyfStQD6i7K+5HRE0TukAD/WY69qtoMG6kG
+p/19kPAUGbuxQCH4HeYpl6fP6cBcgU=
=Hg35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--BC6FFMzhPnkn64Jt--