Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-27447-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:05:23 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
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, 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: <20240116140523.GA3809602-robh@kernel.org>
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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4c5cb4ed-96a3-7bd8-f660-2a3bb041ca09@ti.com>

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:48:53PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> 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 using
> >> 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>
> >> ---
> > 
> > "[DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2]" but no rationale here as to why this cannot
> > be merged? What's the problem with it?
> > 
> 
> 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 binding
> patch gets merged so that the device-tree patches don't get applied by mistake
> if binding patch has some pending comments.

RFC is the tag for "don't merge". Don't make-up your own tags.

Rob