Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 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. If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them separate. > 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). OK, fair that in this case both the bindings and the yaml will land through the Qualcomm tree. I guess it's really up to Bjorn and whether he'd prefer "make dtbs_check" to be bisectable or whether he'd prefer the bindings and dts change to be in separate patches from each other. -Doug
