Message ID | 20190212112126.572-3-shawnguo@kernel.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL,1/7] i.MX drivers update for 5.1 | expand |
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:21 PM Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > In the past, I was simply using imx/dt branch to collect i.MX platform > related DT bindings changes, together with arm32 dts ones. Now with the > move to json-schema, we are using a single fsl.yaml file to accommodate > both arm32 and arm64 platform bindings, while we have separate branches > for dts changes - imx/dt and imx/dt64. To avoid conflicts, I chose to > create a new branch imx/bindings for i.MX platform bindings change for > this cycle. That's why we get this pull request, which you will pull > into arm-soc next/dt branch, I guess. > > For future cycles, I would like to hear your thoughts on if we can use > a single branch for both arm32 and arm64 dts changes, so that the > bindings changes can go in there too. Thanks. I'd say you could combine them if you have only a couple of changesets in total, but given the current size of the branches, I prefer having three or even more separate branches for the DT changes. Arnd
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 04:08:41PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:21 PM Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > In the past, I was simply using imx/dt branch to collect i.MX platform > > related DT bindings changes, together with arm32 dts ones. Now with the > > move to json-schema, we are using a single fsl.yaml file to accommodate > > both arm32 and arm64 platform bindings, while we have separate branches > > for dts changes - imx/dt and imx/dt64. To avoid conflicts, I chose to > > create a new branch imx/bindings for i.MX platform bindings change for > > this cycle. That's why we get this pull request, which you will pull > > into arm-soc next/dt branch, I guess. > > > > For future cycles, I would like to hear your thoughts on if we can use > > a single branch for both arm32 and arm64 dts changes, so that the > > bindings changes can go in there too. Thanks. > > I'd say you could combine them if you have only a couple of changesets > in total, but given the current size of the branches, I prefer having three > or even more separate branches for the DT changes. Got it. Thanks for the comment, Arnd. Shawn