mbox series

[0/9] DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs

Message ID 20200521091356.2211020-1-lkundrak@v3.sk
Headers show
Series DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs | expand

Message

Lubomir Rintel May 21, 2020, 9:13 a.m. UTC 
Hi,

chained to this message is a second version of remaining patches from the
first spin of the "DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs" [1] patch set.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200317093922.20785-1-lkundrak@v3.sk/

I've attempted to address the review of the v1, each patch includes a
detailed change log.

Compared to v1, wherever the license or maintainer information was
missing, I've filled in GPL-2.0-only and people listed in MAINTAINERS
file. As I've indicated in v1 cover letter, am not sure whether this is
the optimal course of action. However I've included the relevant people
in v1 Cc list and asked for clarifications, but didn't really get any
feedback to that.

Cheers
Lubo

Comments

Rob Herring May 28, 2020, 10:52 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> chained to this message is a second version of remaining patches from the
> first spin of the "DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs" [1] patch set.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200317093922.20785-1-lkundrak@v3.sk/
> 
> I've attempted to address the review of the v1, each patch includes a
> detailed change log.
> 
> Compared to v1, wherever the license or maintainer information was
> missing, I've filled in GPL-2.0-only and people listed in MAINTAINERS
> file. As I've indicated in v1 cover letter, am not sure whether this is
> the optimal course of action. However I've included the relevant people
> in v1 Cc list and asked for clarifications, but didn't really get any
> feedback to that.

Find someone that would care if the bindings are deleted. I'm fine 
if you put yourself. Maybe subsystem maintainers are willing to take 
orphans. I really only want my name on common things.

Rob
Lubomir Rintel May 30, 2020, 6:14 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:52:44PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > chained to this message is a second version of remaining patches from the
> > first spin of the "DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs" [1] patch set.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200317093922.20785-1-lkundrak@v3.sk/
> > 
> > I've attempted to address the review of the v1, each patch includes a
> > detailed change log.
> > 
> > Compared to v1, wherever the license or maintainer information was
> > missing, I've filled in GPL-2.0-only and people listed in MAINTAINERS
> > file. As I've indicated in v1 cover letter, am not sure whether this is
> > the optimal course of action. However I've included the relevant people
> > in v1 Cc list and asked for clarifications, but didn't really get any
> > feedback to that.
> 
> Find someone that would care if the bindings are deleted. I'm fine 
> if you put yourself. Maybe subsystem maintainers are willing to take 
> orphans. I really only want my name on common things.

Thanks for clarification & fixups to the patches.

I'm wondering if Documentation/devicetree/writing-schema.rst could
perhaps be made a bit clearer about how the maintainer key in a binding
document is different from what is in the MAINTAINERS file.

> Rob

Lubo