[PATCH v7 17/47] dt-bindings: memory: tegra20: Add memory client IDs

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 18:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:48:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > Each memory client has unique hardware ID, add these IDs.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/dt-bindings/memory/tegra20-mc.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
> >
> > Is there any chance you could drop these dt-bindings include patches
> > (17, 18 and 19) so that I can pick them up into the Tegra tree? The
> > device tree changes that I was going to pick up depend on this and
> > fail to build if applied as-is.
> >
> > I was looking at your linux-mem-ctrl tree and had initially thought I
> > could just pull in one of the branches to get these dependencies, but it
> > looks like the dt-bindings patches are on the for-v5.11/tegra-mc branch,
> > which the ARM SoC maintainers wouldn't like to see me pull in for a
> > dependency on device tree changes.
>
> Partially you answered here. :) Since you should not pull my branch into
> a DT branch, you also should not put these include/dt-bindings patches
> there.  SoC guys will complain about this as well.
>
> These patches are also needed for the driver, so if you take them, I
> would need them back in a pull request. SoC folks could spot it as well
> and point that such merge should not happen.

It seems I was wrong - these patches are not needed for the driver
code. Neither in applied parts nor in upcoming Dmitry's work. In such
case I could rework my branches and send a new pull request. The
patches would stay only in your tree.

Best regards,
Krzysztof