Hi Mark,

On 13:03 Wed 17 Sep     , Mark Brown wrote:

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 07:48:34PM +0800, Vivian Wang wrote:

quoted

Just FYI, Yixun has proposed for net-next to back out of the DTS changes
and taking them up through the spacemit tree instead [1], resolving the
conflicts in the spacemit tree. This would certainly mean less headaches
while managing pull requests, as well as allowing Yixun to take care of
code style concerns like node order. However, I do not know what the
norms here are.

Thanks.  They're pretty trivial conflicts so I'm not sure it's critical,
though like you say node order might easily end up the wrong way round
depending on how the conflict resolution gets done.

Thanks for the help and fixing this, but ..

If it's possible to revert the DT patch 3-5, then I'd be happy to take,
but if this is too much job, e.g. the net-next's main branch is imuutable
and reverting it will cause too much trouble, then I'm fine with current
solution - carry the fix via net-next tree..

But please use commit: 0f084b221e2c5ba16eca85b3d2497f9486bd0329 of
https://github.com/spacemit-com/linux/tree/k1/dt-for-next as the merge
parent, which I'm about to send to Arnd (the SoC tree)

BTW, The 'for-next' branch is a merged branch contains clock and DT patches
for SpacemiT SoC tree's which isn't immutable..

Let me know what I should proceed, thank you

-- 
Yixun Lan (dlan)