[PATCH] dt-bindings: display: msm: sm6125-mdss: drop unneeded status from examples

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 26/07/2023 10:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/07/2023 09:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/07/2023 13:46, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-25 12:16:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Example DTS should not have 'status' property.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/qcom,sm6125-mdss.yaml   | 6 ------
>>>
>>> This is not needed: it has already been corrected in v3 and v4 of the
>>> respective series (among other changes) and the patches were only picked
>>> to a preliminary (draft) pull to get an overview of the outstanding work
>>> for this subsystem.  That branch happens to be included in regular -next
>>> releases though.
>>>
>>> 6.6 drm/msm display pull: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/merge_requests/69
>>> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230718-sm6125-dpu-v3-0-6c5a56e99820@somainline.org/
>>> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230723-sm6125-dpu-v4-0-a3f287dd6c07@somainline.org/
>>
>> What do you mean? The old code (one I am fixing) is in current next...
>>
>> If this was fixed, why next gets some outdated branches of drm next?
>> Each maintainers next tree is supposed to be fed into the next, without
>> delays.
>>
> 
> Ah, I think I understood - some work in progress was applied to
> work-in-progress branch of drm/msm and this somehow got pushed to
> linux-next? How anyone is supposed to work on next branches if they are
> outdated or have stuff known to be incomplete?

The drm/msm & bindings parts were considered final, but then I failed to 
send 'applied' series for some reason. And then it was natural for 
Marijn to send an updated revision.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry