Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: arm-smmu: Add sc7180 compatible string

[Will Deacon]

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:59:49PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 7:39 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:05:39PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:30 AM Sharat Masetty <smasetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch simply adds a new compatible string for SC7180 platform.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sharat Masetty <smasetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml | 1 +
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> > > > index 6515dbe..986098b 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/arm,smmu.yaml
> > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ properties:
> > > >            - enum:
> > > >                - qcom,msm8996-smmu-v2
> > > >                - qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2
> > > > +              - qcom,sc7180-smmu-v2
> > > >                - qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2
> > > >            - const: qcom,smmu-v2
> > >
> > > Is anything blocking this patch from landing now?
> >
> > I thought updates to the bindings usually went via Rob and the device-tree
> > tree, but neither of those are on cc.
> >
> > Perhaps resend with that fixed?
> 
> Ah, I guess I wasn't familiar with how things worked for this file, or
> maybe things have changed recently?  I'm used to most bindings going
> through the same tree as the drivers that use them.  Usually if things
> are at all complicated maintainers wait for an Ack from Rob (so he
> should have been CCed for sure) and then land.

Just to clear this up: I'm happy to take DT stuff like this, but preferably
with Rob's ack so that I know that (a) it's not a load of rubbish and (b) it
probably won't conflict with his tree. So having the DT folks omitted from
the CC list just rings alarm bells for me.

> In this case it actually looks like Bjorn landed it in the Qualcomm
> and I just didn't realize it.  That seems like it should be fine since
> it's in the middle of a clause that's all Qualcomm and the change
> shouldn't be controversial in any way.  :-)

Ok!

Will