Hi, On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 21/07/2022 20:29, 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. > > 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
