On 27/03/2023 13:39, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > On Mon 27 Mar 2023 at 13:51, Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:51:21AM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote: >>> >>> On Tue 21 Mar 2023 at 22:30, Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Add the documentation for Amlogic A1 PLL and Amlogic A1 Peripherals >>>> clock drivers. >>>> Introduce Amlogic A1 PLL and Amlogic A1 Peripherals device tree >>>> bindings and include them to MAINTAINERS. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jian Hu <jian.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> .../bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-clkc.yaml | 73 +++++++++++ >>>> .../bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-pll-clkc.yaml | 59 +++++++++ >>>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-clkc.h | 113 ++++++++++++++++++ >>>> .../dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-pll-clkc.h | 21 ++++ >>>> 5 files changed, 267 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-clkc.yaml >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-pll-clkc.yaml >>> >>> There is two drivers (and 2 independent patches). There should be 2 >>> bindings patches as well. >>> >> >> Before, in previous versions I had two versions, but it wasn't bisectable >> approach. > > You are confusing bisectable and Rob's robot. Splitting patches is more > that likely to help bisect (and patches backport) - not the other way around. No, he did not confuse. Splitting patches makes the series non-bisectable which was visible in the past. What's more, there is no reason to have bindings patches split just because you split drivers. Bindings are independent of drivers - we write them for hardware description. > >> a1-clkc schema depends on a1-pll-clkc headers and vice versa. >> It means dt schemas checkers will show us failure if we split them into two >> patchsets. > > Only because you are patches are not upstream yet ... > >> I know, that we can use raw digits instead of CLKID names, but IMO it doesn't >> look like production schema and it requires one more patchset above the >> series with proper CLKID definitons usage and proper header including. >> >> BTW, there is an example of Rob's test bot failure found in the previous >> v10 patch series due to chicken or the egg problem. >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/167769997208.7087.5344356236212731922.robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Please advise what's the best practice to resolve that.. > > Don't use the header in your example would solve the problem and > still be correct DT wise. > > The examples are just examples, they are not required to actually > matches a real HW, as far as I know. Yes, that would work... or just keep them here. Best regards, Krzysztof
