On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:26:50AM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > Hi Tomi, > > On 17/01/22 7:24 pm, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:22:52PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> On 17/01/22 11:01 am, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> > >>> On 13/01/22 7:42 pm, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 01:25:26PM +0530, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> From: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> If there is an optional boot notification channel that an SoC uses > >>>>> separate from the rx path, use the same. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> .../remoteproc/k3-system-controller.txt | 3 +++ > >>>>> drivers/remoteproc/k3_system_controller.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++- > >>>>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> Binding docs are rst these days, so we should sync with upstream and > >>>> then this property is already there, right? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I will create a followup patch to convert documentation to rst. Also, > >>> about the property, mbox-names property is already present but > >>> "boot_notify" is a newly added channel and not are required property. > >>> So, this was additionally added. > >>> > >> > >> One more question regarding documentation, should it be changed to rst > >> or yaml, as this is a device tree binding? > > > > I mis-spoke, yeah. It should be yaml and pushed upstream first, then > > brought back here. > > > > I am sorry, I have one more question. This above documentation file is > not present in kernel documentation, so I did not understand how can > this be pushed there first. > > Also, as converting to yaml would be a different work. Wouldn't it be > better to separate that work from this series?
Sigh, it should have been upstreamed first. So yeah, make the changes you need here now and then please start pushing it upstream, thanks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
