On 12/08/2024 13:58, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 8/12/24 1:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from krzk@xxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >> >> On 31/07/2024 17:12, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Farouk Bouabid wrote: >>>> Theobroma Systems Mule is an MCU that emulates a set of I2C devices, >>>> among which is an amc6821 and other devices that are reachable through >>>> an I2C-mux. >>>> >>>> The devices on the mux can be selected by writing the appropriate device >>>> number to an I2C config register (amc6821: reg 0xff) >>>> >>>> Implement "tsd,mule" compatible to instantiate the I2C-mux platform device >>>> when probing the amc6821. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Farouk Bouabid <farouk.bouabid@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Applied. >> >> Eh, there is undocumented dependency on I2C here. Next has warning >> because of this. >> > > I think you meant to comment this on > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/20240725-dev-mule-i2c-mux-v6-0-f9f6d7b60fb2@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mdb7976f1dc16fce0b7db9abee6fd0b1fd0a2e2ba > (patch 3 and not 4 of the series). This patch (4) is fine on its own I > believe, no dependency on anything else. (well, except if we expect > bindings to be absolutely merged before the drivers? I think what > matters is the Device Tree changes making use of the new binding be > merged after dt-binding changes?). Yeah, this was about DT binding. > > I agree that there's a somewhat non-obvious dependency between patch 1 > and 3 (the dt-bindings) and 5-8 with everything before, we could have > made this more explicit. > >> Farouk, please *always mention* the dependencies between patches. >> > > I wasn't aware of that rule, my apologies for not catching this before > upstream submission. > > For anyone wondering the rule is made explicit here: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#separate-your-changes > > "If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be > complete, that is OK. Simply note “this patch depends on patch X” in > your patch description." > > Question about b4 workflow though. I encourage using b4 to avoid as many > mistakes as possible and make the workflow as painless as possible. I > believe b4 doesn't allow you to have per-patch notes, only in the > cover-letter. "Patch description" or "per patch notes" is whatever you write in changelog, so under ---. > a) is this dependency list in cover-letter acceptable, or > b) need to add it to the patch note (below the ---), or One of above should be enough, both are more welcomed because many maintainers ignore completely cover letters. > c) can add it to the patch commit log No, if patches go through separate trees then it would be just confusing and not helping at all. Best regards, Krzysztof
