Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 at 14:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 26/12/2023 08:53, Sumit Garg wrote: > >> > >> The problem I want to solve is the kernel maintainers to be aware. > >> > > > > Although Tom has already expressed in the other thread that U-Boot has > > been a long time user of upstream

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On 26/12/2023 08:53, Sumit Garg wrote: >> >> The problem I want to solve is the kernel maintainers to be aware. >> > > Although Tom has already expressed in the other thread that U-Boot has > been a long time user of upstream DT but if we want to make it more > formal from an enforcement point of

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 22/12/2023 16:45, Conor Dooley wrote: > >>> > >>> I suppose we have to relay information to kernel sub-arch maintainers > >>> who aren't the same as maintaining U-Boot counterparts. How about > >>> adding U-Boot ML to CC for whichever

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:55:54PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/12/2023 16:46, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski > >>> wrote: > >>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On 22/12/2023 16:46, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> wrote: On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: > Changes in v2: > ---

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On 22/12/2023 16:45, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> >>> I suppose we have to relay information to kernel sub-arch maintainers >>> who aren't the same as maintaining U-Boot counterparts. How about >>> adding U-Boot ML to CC for whichever DT change gets submitted in the >> >> And every other project? Just s

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > wrote: > >> > >> On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>> Changes in v2: > >>> -- > >>> - Patch #1: excluded gitab

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > wrote: > >> > >> On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>> Changes in v2: > >>> -- > >>> - Patch #1: excluded gitab

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On 22/12/2023 14:43, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski > wrote: >> >> On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: >>> Changes in v2: >>> -- >>> - Patch #1: excluded gitab CI config check and added commit description. >>> - Patch #3: s/UBOOT_DTSI_LOC/u_boo

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 13:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Changes in v2: > > -- > > - Patch #1: excluded gitab CI config check and added commit description. > > - Patch #3: s/UBOOT_DTSI_LOC/u_boot_dtsi_loc/ > > - Patch #4: s/DEVICE_TREE_LOC

Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] An effort to bring DT bindings compliance within U-Boot

On 22/12/2023 07:12, Sumit Garg wrote: > Changes in v2: > -- > - Patch #1: excluded gitab CI config check and added commit description. > - Patch #3: s/UBOOT_DTSI_LOC/u_boot_dtsi_loc/ > - Patch #4: s/DEVICE_TREE_LOC/dt_dir/ and s/U-boot/U-Boot/ > - Patch #5: s/U-boot/U-Boot/ > - Patch #