Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:23:05 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: update compatible name for match with driver | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 13/03/2024 02:30, Tengfei Fan wrote: > > > On 3/12/2024 6:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12/03/2024 08:47, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/12/2024 3:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 12/03/2024 03:58, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>>>> Use compatible name "qcom,sm4450-tlmm" instead of "qcom,sm4450-pinctrl" >>>>> to match the compatible name in sm4450 pinctrl driver. >>>>> >>>>> Fixes: 7bf8b78f86db ("dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: Add SM4450 pinctrl") >>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@quicinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm4450-tlmm.yaml | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> Wasn't this applied? >>> >>> My test code base on tag: next-20240308, this patch is still not applied. >>> >>> In fact, the following dt binding check warning only can be got before >>> this patch is applied. >>> >> >> Please read all emails in the previous thread. You ignored two emails in >> the past and apparently one more recent. > > I don't know if you mean I ignored the email which related with "Patch > applied" tag from Linus Walleij. If so, the following is the reasion why > I still include this patch:
Yep, that's the one. Please do not send patches which were already applied. It causes unnecessary effort on reviewer and maintainer side.
> > I synced the latest upstream code on 03/12/2024, the latest tag is > next-20240308, this tag still doesn't include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2].
Happens, considering Linus applied it after 8th of March, I think.
> > Dt binding check still get warning if I only send [PATCH v3 2/2] patch > to upstream base on next-20240308. so I include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2]
If you send patch 1+2, dt_binding_check will have exactly the same result. I don't know about what sort of dt binding check you talk, but for all cases: you changed nothing by sending these two patches in that regard. Only noise on the lists.
> in patch series even if this patch have "Patch applied" tag. > > Looking forward to getting your advice if submitting patch series this > way is problematic.
Do not send patches which are known to be applied.
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |