Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] DT: hwspinlock: Add binding documentation for Qualcomm hwmutex

From: Ohad Ben-Cohen
Date: Mon Apr 06 2015 - 12:31:42 EST

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Tim Bird <tbird20d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Tim Bird <tbird20d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, I can't take this without a DT ack.
>>> Hmmm.
>>> The policy seems to be:
>>> "For driver (not subsystem) bindings: If you are comfortable with the
>>> binding, and it hasn't received an Acked-by from the devicetree
>>> maintainers after a few weeks, go ahead and take it."
>>> The syscon property is only relative to the qcom hwspinlock driver,
>>> (unless I'm missing something) and both Qualcomm and Sony devs are
>>> OK with it. So while an ACK from the DT side would be nice, I don't
>>> think it's required. This is exactly the type of delay that is really
>>> holding up a lot of out-of-tree code.
>> Sorry, I do prefer to make sure Mark is OK with this devicetree patch,
>> especially since it wasn't clear whether Mark is entirely comfortable
>> with it in his last response.
> Just to be clear - do you personally have any objections to the patch?

No, but this patch is for a folder I don't maintain so I prefer
someone who does to take a look.

Mark did take a look, and said he's confused by this patch (see this thread).

Do you want me to ignore him and just send it to Linus anyway?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at