On 12/6/21 10:55 AM, Lee Jones wrote:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Florian Fainelli wrote:

quoted

On 12/6/21 1:05 AM, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

quoted

On 06.12.2021 09:44, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 06 Dec 2021, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

quoted

On 15.11.2021 06:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:

quoted

From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>

This helps validating DTS files.

Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

I'm not familiar with handling multi-subsystem patchsets (here: watchdog
& MFD).

Please kindly let me know: how to proceed with this patchset now to get
it queued for Linus?

What is the requirement for these to be merged together?

If you merge 2/2 without 1/2 then people running "make dt_binding_check"
may see 1 extra warning until both patches meet in Linus's tree.

So it all comes to how much you care about amount of warnings produced
by "dt_binding_check".

In -next, I don't, but I know Rob gets excited about it.

Rob, what is your final word on this?  Is it a forced requirement for
all interconnected document changes to go in together?

The first patch is queued up in Guenter's watchdog tree here:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git/commit/?h=watchdog-next&id=a5b2ebc8f6e67b5c81023e8bde6b19ff48ffdb02

and will be submitted to Wim shortly I believe, so I suppose we should
take patch #2 via Guenter and Wim's tree as well logically.

If that happens, I would like a PR to an immutable branch.

I don't entirely see the point of that complexity for dt changes,
but whatever. Since my tree is not the official watchdog-next tree,
that means I can not take the entire series (which goes way beyond
the dt changes and also drops the bcm63xx driver). Unless I hear
otherwise, I'll drop the series from my tree for the time being
and wait for the dt changes to be sorted out.

Guenter