Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:22 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:29:13AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > 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. > > Correct. > > > > > 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. > > Bindings go first if applied together because you have to define the > binding before you use it. But sometimes things go via multiple trees > and that's fine because it's just easier. In that case, the subsystem > tree is preferred for bindings (i.e. with the driver). But in this case, > Bjorn is the subsystem tree. Thanks! I'll interpret your response as: 1. Keep this as two patches and it's more important to keep dts and bindings separate than it is to avoid breaking bisectability of "make dtbs_check". 2. Bindings should have been patch #1, but it's not a massive deal. 3. I'll assume that Bjorn will yell if he'd like this series re-posted with the reverse order. -Doug
