[v3,3/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: Deprecate sunxi pinctrl bindings

The generic pin configuration and multiplexing should be preferred now,
even though we still support the old one.

Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sunxi-pinctrl.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> The generic pin configuration and multiplexing should be preferred now,
> even though we still support the old one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
> Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Patch applied.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hi Linus,

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:03:59AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> 
> > The generic pin configuration and multiplexing should be preferred now,
> > even though we still support the old one.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
> > Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> 
> Patch applied.

Thanks a lot.

However, it looks like the first patch from this serie is missing from
your tree, is there a reason for that?

Also, in order to preserve bisectability, could you create an
immutable branch for those sunxi patches so that I can merge the DT
bits?

Thanks,
Maxime

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> However, it looks like the first patch from this serie is missing from
> your tree, is there a reason for that?

No can you point it out?

> Also, in order to preserve bisectability, could you create an
> immutable branch for those sunxi patches so that I can merge the DT
> bits?

It's too late because they are already in the devel branch
and mixed up with merged of *other* immutable stuff.

However I think it is plain wrong to try to keep any bisectability
between the kernel at large and arch/*/boot/dts/*, because
the DTS stuff is supposed to at some point be maintained outside
of the kernel and for all OSes, they simply shouldn't be sync:ed.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hi Linus,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:07:27PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Maxime Ripard
> <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> 
> > However, it looks like the first patch from this serie is missing from
> > your tree, is there a reason for that?
> 
> No can you point it out?

Sure:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-October/462500.html

> > Also, in order to preserve bisectability, could you create an
> > immutable branch for those sunxi patches so that I can merge the DT
> > bits?
> 
> It's too late because they are already in the devel branch
> and mixed up with merged of *other* immutable stuff.

Hmmmm, ok.

> However I think it is plain wrong to try to keep any bisectability
> between the kernel at large and arch/*/boot/dts/*, because
> the DTS stuff is supposed to at some point be maintained outside
> of the kernel and for all OSes, they simply shouldn't be sync:ed.

Yes, in the case of a new driver that needs to be introduced, I
definitely get your point.

However, during a conversion like we're doing here, this is not ideal,
because it essentially means that you will not have a branch that
works, at all.

I'll hold off on those patches until 4.11 then.

Thanks!
Maxime