On 12/05/2023 16:30, Luca Weiss wrote: > On Sun Apr 23, 2023 at 12:51 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 21/04/2023 16:11, Luca Weiss wrote: >>> Add the node describing uart1 incl. opp table and pinctrl. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+) >> >> Please do not send DTS patches for net-next. DTS must go via Qualcomm >> SoC. Split the series and mention where is the bindings change in DTS >> patchset. > > Sorry, just saw now after already sending v2. > > Is this a special rule for linux-bluetooth@ / netdev@? Isn't it easier > to keep it together so the status of series can be assessed easier? I've > always submitted patches by topic, like input patches + dts patches and > it was never mentioned. The rule that DTS must go via Qualcomm SoC (arm-soc) was there always, but other maintainers often do not pay attention to this. I don't blame them, don't get me wrong. I am just stating the observed actions. Usually netdev folks and Greg will take everything you throw at them, so for these subsystems it is recommended to split DTS to different patchset. For other maintainers it is usually also more useful to split, because then they can apply entire patchset with one command, instead of picking up specific patches (omitting DTS). Best regards, Krzysztof
