On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I would say worth v4, because otherwise patches is not bisectable. > > You're saying because `dtbs_check` will fail between the two? Yes > 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. Bindings for boards go pretty often with DTS (subarch). This is exactly what maintainers do, e.g.: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/log/?h=arm64-for-5.20 Bindings for hardware should go via subsystem maintainer (drivers). Best regards, Krzysztof
