On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:09:51AM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 24/10/2022 09:42, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:34:22AM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 24/10/2022 08:58, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> Add the TCSR node which is needed for PCIe configuration. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 5 +++++ > >> > >> Please send the patches together with the binding. There is no need to > >> have this split and it causes additional effort during review - lookup > >> of the binding. > > > > I was under the impression that the dts changes should be submitted > > separately from the binding as they go through different trees. (And > > last time I posted them together the subsystem maintainer ended up > > taking also the dts changes by mistake). > > Yes, that's also true. :) > > > The binding has been picked up by Lee now so I posted the dts change. > > Could have added a lore link though. > > This also would work and help a lot. > > It depends in general on the maintainer - for example Greg does not want > to deal with individual patches, especially if DTS is just one patch and > USB would be 10 of them. Our toolset is not good for picking up 10 out > of 11. For all such cases - please provide link to lore. > > If however there are just two patches - one DTS and one for maintainer - > then having them in one patchset should not cause additional effort for > the maintainer. I'm pretty sure I saw Lee complaining about Bjorn taking also the binding update through the qcom tree recently when someone did just that. Apparently it was TCSR related too: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yzbk%2F6SQdpNQTahV@xxxxxxxxxx/ Heh. That was you. :) > As you can see on the list, majority of patchsets consist of > bindings+DTS. Pretty often entire piece - bindings+driver+DTS. Yeah, and whatever alternative you go with, someone will get it wrong or complain it seems. Johan
