On 05/04/2023 16:34, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > > On 05/04/2023 15:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 05/04/2023 15:06, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: >>> On 05/04/2023 13:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 05/04/2023 11:53, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: >>>>> Ok, I will move the driver patch before the DTS patches in the next version. >>>>> >>>> Or do not send it together at all, which might solve your dependency >>>> problem. According to your cover letter I cannot take the memory >>>> controller bits, so I am waiting for dependencies to hit the mainline. >>>> Alternatively I will need pull request with stable tag. >>>> >>> Ok, I prefer send the driver patch in another serie. That will solve the >>> dependency with the DTS a least. >> What dependency? Why do you have dependencies between drivers and DTS? >> That's a no-go. > I probably do something wrong but, that start with this comment [1]: > >> I guess we should add a independent "mediatek,mt8365-smi-common". > > Then I have added the mt8365 compatible support in the driver instead of using the mt8186 which already supported and used in the v1. > I change the binding and DTS to use "mediatek,mt8365-smi-common" only (no more "mediatek,mt8186-smi-common"). > Maybe "dependency isn't the good word to use in that case. I do not see patch changing existing compatible. Which one is it? I don't know what is your meaning of dependency then. For all of us, dependency means one patch must be applied after another patch. So is this the case here? If yes, then why? > Except for the patch order in the serie (or send the driver in another one), everything is fine or there are others wrong things ? If this is the question to me, then I am not the maintainer of your platform. I am taking only memory controller bits, which look fine and I would have already apply them if not the dependency trouble. Soon the window for applying will close, BTW. We are almost at RC6. Best regards, Krzysztof
