[[RFC]DPU PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: drm/bridge: Document sn65dsi86 bridge bindings

[spanda at codeaurora.org]

On 2018-04-27 08:43, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 08:46:13PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Stephen Boyd <swboyd at chromium.org> 
>> wrote:
>> > Quoting Sandeep Panda (2018-04-19 10:56:06)
>> >> Document the bindings used for the sn65dsi86 DSI to eDP bridge.
>> >>
>> >> Changes in v1:
>> >>  - Rephrase the dt-binding descriptions to be more inline with existing
>> >>    bindings (Andrzej Hajda).
>> >>  - Add missing dt-binding that are parsed by corresponding driver
>> >>    (Andrzej Hajda).
>> >>
>> >> Changes in v2:
>> >>  - Removed edp panel specific dt-binding entries. Only keep bridge
>> >>    specific entries (Sean Paul).
>> >>  - Remove custom-modes dt entry since its usage is removed from driver also (Sean Paul).
>> >>  - Remove is-pluggable dt entry since this will not be needed anymore (Sean Paul).
>> >>
>> >> Changes in v3:
>> >>  - Removed irq-gpio dt entry and instead populate is an interrupt
>> >>    property (Rob Herring).
>> >
>> > These changelogs usually go below the triple dash, but maybe drm is
>> > different and wants them?
>> 
>> yeah, drm generally wants them in the commit msg rather than below the
>> triple-dash, although I guess for bindings docs it should follow the
>> rules for that tree.. I usually just fix up these sort of things as I
>> apply patches, but not sure what other maintainers prefer
> 
> Well, these DPU patches aren't targeted for upstream so who cares.

This change is independent of other DPU patches. We are planning to 
upstream these bridge and panel changes.
I will upload the next patchset dropping the DPU tag to avoid any 
confusion.
> 
> Many patch revision changelogs I see are crap with statements like
> "implement changes requested by ??". But in this case, the changelog is
> really good.
> 
> Rob