On 31/01/2023 22:28, Sahin, Okan wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 7:44 PM > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 31/01/2023 13:02, Sahin, Okan wrote: >>>>> + regulators: >>>>> + $ref: /schemas/regulator/adi,max77541-regulator.yaml# >>>> >>>> No improvements regarding bisectability - this patch fails. If you >>>> tested this patch, you would see it. >>>> >>>> Instead of ignoring comments, either implement them or ask for clarification. >>>> >>>> >>> Sorry for misunderstanding, I checked patchset as a whole not one by one this is >> why I did not get failure after "make dt_binding_check " . Right now, I understand >> why you are saying this patch fails, but what is your suggestion? what is the >> correct order for this patchset? I sent adi,max77541-regulator.yaml in path 4/5. >> In the light of discussion, should I remove all the parts related to regulator in >> patch 2/5, then add adi,max77541-regulator.yaml and update >> adi,max77541.yaml in patch 4/5? or should I add new patch to update >> adi,max77541.yaml? >> >> Regulator binding patch should be first in the series (bindings are before usage), >> then the MFD binding should come. Your cover letter should clearly at the top >> mention the dependency. You can also mention dependency in MFD patch after -- >> -, because many of us do not really read cover letters... >> >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > Hi Krzysztof, > > Thank you for your feedback. I tried to explain in cover letter .However, I understand that it was not clear enough. I do not want to take your time, but let me ask one thing to understand the case completely. Right now, my order is like below > [cover letter]->[mfd driver]->[mfd binding]->[regulator driver]->[regulator binding]->[adc]. > Should I completely change the ordering e.g. starting with regulator ending with mfd or is it sufficient to just get the regulator binding just before the mfd bindings? "bindings are before usage" - what's unclear? How can you use binding before defining it? Best regards, Krzysztof
