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

[Rob Clark]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:02 AM,  <spanda at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

jfwiw, probably a good idea not to use the 'DPU' tag for anything that
isn't dependent on the DPU patcheset, to reduce confusion

BR,
-R