Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:56:51 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek,mt2712: add compatible for MT7988 |
| |
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:27:54AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 14/02/24 07:34, Rafał Miłecki ha scritto: > > On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > > > > > > > MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > > > > > > I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? > > > > I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes > > tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: > > 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS > > 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver > > > > I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal > > with all MediaTek DTS files. > > > > Is that wrong or unacceptable? > > > > It's not wrong but it's partially unacceptable, at least on my side. > > In my opinion (and I believe many do agree with me), sending the binding along > with the driver is the right choice, and if you also want to include the dts > that is also appreciated: series can go through multiple maintainers applying > subsets - it's ok to do.
Just to put in my 2 ¢: My preference is to not avoid cross-trees patchsets and put all three patches in a single series. This combines the advantages of 1. and 2. Given this happens often enough this is something that the maintainers are used to handle just fine, so the cross-tree issue isn't problematic most of the time. The conflicts that sometimes arise with cross-tree patches aren't bad enough to out-weight having binding, driver and dts changes all together.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |