On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 04:40:53PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:09:56 +0000, Stafford Horne wrote: > > Since v5: > > - Adjust dt-binding patch based on suggestions from Geert and Krzysztof. > > - Add reviewed-by's on the dt-binding patch. > > Since v4: > > - Rebased the series on linux-next to allow patches to be incremental. > > - Rewrote the dt-bindings patch as an incremental patch, Due to this I > > dropped reviewed-by's. > > - Added acked-by to the IPI fix patch. > > Since v3: > > - Switch order of gpio-mmio driver and bindings patches to patch binding > > first before driver. Suggested by Krzysztof. > > - Removed example form binding suggested by Krzysztof. > > - Added Reviewed-by's from Geert and Linus W. > > Since v2: > > - Fixup (replace) gpio-mmio patch to update driver compatible list and > > just add > > opencores,gpio to mmio-gpio bindings. Discussed with Geert and Linus W > > because the 8-bit opencores,gpio is not the same as the 32-bit broadcom > > chip. [1]. > > - Update new device trees to use proper ordering, remove debug options, > > remove > > unneeded "status" properties. Suggested by Geert. > > Since v1: > > - Use proper schema in gpio-mmio suggsted by Conor Dooley > > - Remove 0 clock-frequency definitions in dtsi file > > > > [...] > > Applied, thanks! > > [1/6] dt-bindings: gpio-mmio: Correct opencores GPIO > commit: b2b8d247ad8ee1abe860598cae70e2dbe8a09128 > [2/6] gpio: mmio: Add compatible for opencores GPIO > commit: 3a6a36a3fc4e18e202eaf6c258553b5a17b91677
Thanks, now that these commits are on gpio-next I would like to apply the rest of the patches to my openrisc/for-next branch. Since the other patches depend on the GPIO patches for system functionality, do you think it would be safe for me to merge the gpio-next branch into my branch? It seems a bit messy, Maybe I should just wait for the next cycle. But if you have any suggestions of experience with this any comments would be appreciated. -Stafford
