On Mon 27 Mar 2023 at 15:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Patches should do one thing, my comment is a simple application of that. There no reason to have a single patch provide the bindings for 2 independent pieces of HW, which those components are. If a dependency has been set, it is one that should not be there. They do provide inputs to one another, yes but remain independent pieces of HW. They have a different address space and as a consequences, different drivers If we were being strict, it should even be seperate series. > >> >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-amlogic mailing list > linux-amlogic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic
