Hello, On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:27:54AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 14/02/24 07:34, Rafał Miłecki ha scritto: > > On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > > > > > > I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? > > > > I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes > > tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: > > 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS > > 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver > > > > I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal > > with all MediaTek DTS files. > > > > Is that wrong or unacceptable? > > > > It's not wrong but it's partially unacceptable, at least on my side. > > In my opinion (and I believe many do agree with me), sending the binding along > with the driver is the right choice, and if you also want to include the dts > that is also appreciated: series can go through multiple maintainers applying > subsets - it's ok to do. Just to put in my 2 ¢: My preference is to not avoid cross-trees patchsets and put all three patches in a single series. This combines the advantages of 1. and 2. Given this happens often enough this is something that the maintainers are used to handle just fine, so the cross-tree issue isn't problematic most of the time. The conflicts that sometimes arise with cross-tree patches aren't bad enough to out-weight having binding, driver and dts changes all together. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
