On 8/4/20 10:46 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:

Hi All,

On 02/08/20 4:04 pm, Sekhar Nori wrote:

quoted

On 8/1/20 2:29 AM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 01:24:17PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:

quoted

On 7/31/20 1:16 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 06:01:50PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On 2020-07-28 06:17, Lokesh Vutla wrote:

quoted

Hi Marc,
	This is continuation of the RFC patches[0] regarding the driver
updates to support for following interrupt parent connection:
- INTR -> INTR
- INTA -> GICv3
The current existing driver assumes that INTR is always connected to
GICv3 and INTA is always connected to INTR.

I'm OK to take this if I can get an Ack from RobH on the three
DT patches that still need it.

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

However, there's a dependency on
bindings/arm/keystone/ti,k3-sci-common.yaml.

That's a dependency on this being merged. I don't care if it breaks in
your tree, but I care for -next and Linus' tree. There could also be
other 'make dt_bindings_check' failures/warnings with this as the above
dependency prevents further testing.

Bjorn did pick up the above common binding file through the remoteproc tree,
and it is available in -next. That said, I donno the merge order between
remoteproc and irq subsystem trees into -next, and if that is a concern.

I'm less concerned about merge order at this point. -rc1 not being 
broken is the low bar I have...

Looking at Bjorn's remoteproc tree[0], the common bindings patch is 
applied on top of other (unrelated) remoteproc patches, so merging it 
into Marc's tree is out of question unless Bjorn is willing to re-write 
his tree (probably not).

The other option would be for Marc/Thomas to add these patches into a 
'late' branch, to be sent to Linus after Bjorn's tree has been merged.
Bjorn could help by sending his pull request early and someone from TI 
can keep an eye out for when its safe to merge.

What can we do to take this forward? Once this series is merged, DT changes
should also be merged. Else DMA will be broken as DT backward compatibility is
broken.

The DT parts should have been posted in the same series then, so as to
not cause breakage after the series is applied, and to preserve bisect
as much as possible.

IMHO, the whole series needs to be merged together even if parts of it
come from individual maintainers as immutable commits.

Do the DT portions cause merge conflicts with what is already there in
-next?

I think the next step would be to post the series again, this time with
DT changes included. Whether it goes into v5.9 or v5.10, thats probably
needed anyway.

Thanks,
Sekhar


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel