lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel
    Hi,

    On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
    <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
    >
    > On 21/07/2022 20:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
    > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote:
    > >>> Hi,
    > >>>
    > >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
    > >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> On 21/07/2022 15:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Not worth sending a new version for, but normally I expect the
    > >>>>> bindings to be patch #1 and the dts change to be patch #2. In any
    > >>>>> case:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I would say worth v4, because otherwise patches is not bisectable.
    > >>>
    > >>> You're saying because `dtbs_check` will fail between the two?
    > >>
    > >> Yes
    > >
    > > OK. Then I assume you agree that reversing the order of the patches
    > > won't help, only combining the two patches into one.
    > >
    > >
    > >>> How does
    > >>> flipping the order help? If `dtbs_check` needs to be bisectable then
    > >>> these two need to be one patch, but I was always under the impression
    > >>> that we wanted bindings patches separate from dts patches.
    > >>
    > >> I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must be separate from
    > >> DTS. The only restriction is DTS cannot go with drivers.
    > >
    > > I have always heard that best practice is to have bindings in a patch
    > > by themselves.
    >
    > Yes, bindings must be separate patch, no one here objects this. You said
    > they cannot go together via one maintainer tree or I misunderstood?
    >
    > > If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their
    > > minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them
    > > separate.
    >
    > Nothing changed. Bindings must be separate. They will be applied by
    > maintainer and, if correctly ordered, this is bisectable.

    OK, I think this is the disconnect here.

    No matter what order Jimmy's patches land in, it won't be bisectable
    from the standpoint of "make dtbs_check". This is what I've been
    trying to say.

    * If the bindings land first then the device tree won't have sku6 and
    will fail "make dtbs_check"

    * If the dts lands first then the bindings won't have sku6 and will
    fail "make dtbs_check".

    Am I missing something?

    So when you said "I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must
    be separate from DTS" and that you cared about "make dtbs_check" being
    bisectable that you were saying you wanted these squashed into one
    patch. I guess that's not the case.

    -Doug

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-07-22 19:24    [W:3.281 / U:0.520 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site