From patchwork Thu May 21 09:13:47 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Lubomir Rintel X-Patchwork-Id: 1295035 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming-dt@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming-dt@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=vger.kernel.org (client-ip=23.128.96.18; helo=vger.kernel.org; envelope-from=devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=v3.sk Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49SP7b30yzz9sSF for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:14:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728674AbgEUJOC (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 05:14:02 -0400 Received: from v6.sk ([167.172.42.174]:34758 "EHLO v6.sk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728671AbgEUJOC (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 05:14:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (v6.sk [IPv6:::1]) by v6.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF18610A5; Thu, 21 May 2020 09:14:00 +0000 (UTC) From: Lubomir Rintel To: Rob Herring Cc: Alessandro Zummo , Alexandre Belloni , Bartosz Golaszewski , Daniel Lezcano , Jason Cooper , Linus Walleij , Marc Zyngier , Thomas Gleixner , Ulf Hansson , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 0/9] DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:13:47 +0200 Message-Id: <20200521091356.2211020-1-lkundrak@v3.sk> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.26.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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