Re: [PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7

[Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>]

Hi Felipe

On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is
>>>>>>>>> USB
>>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works
>>>>>>>>> with its
>>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external
>>>>>>>>> ULPI phy
>>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7):
>>>>>>>>>       dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core
>>>>>>>>> binding
>>>>>>>>>       usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS
>>>>>>>>>       ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU"
>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but
>>>>>>> stm32
>>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to
>>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT
>>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue.
>>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2
>>>>> in your tree.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours.
>>>
>>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take
>>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine.
>>> No ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be
>> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be
>> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something?
> 
> patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch,
> checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works.
> 
> If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries.

I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you 
take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine.

Thanks in advance.
Alex

> 
> let me know
>