On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 23:02:43 +0100
Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dragan,
> Hello all,
>
> On 2024-12-17 22:15, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:00:45 -0800
> > Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 09:34:57PM -0800, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
> >> > > These will be used to explicitly select TCON0 clock parent in dts
> >> > >
> >> > > Fixes: ca1170b69968 ("clk: sunxi-ng: a64: force select PLL_MIPI in TCON0 mux")
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > ---
> >> > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.h | 2 --
> >> > > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a64-ccu.h | 2 +
> >>
> >> > You cannot combine these changes.
> >>
> >> The patch basically moves defines out from ccu-sun50i-a64.h to
> >> sun50i-a64-ccu.h. How do I split the change without introducing
> >> compilation failure?
> >
> > You can just have the binding part first, adding the (same) definition
> > to the binding headers. As long as the #define's are not conflicting,
> > this is fine.
> > Then remove the now redundant definitions in the kernel headers, with a
> > subsequent patch.
>
> Yes, that would be a way to make it formally correct, but also much
> less readable and understandable later, as part of the source code
> repository. FWIW, I find this to be an example of the form being
> more important than the actual function.
Not sure I understand your last sentence, exactly, but what
Krzysztof pointed out is that one part (the header change in
include/dt-bindings) is a DT binding patch, so part of a spec, if you
like, the other is Linux *code*. There is the DT rebasing repo, which
cherry-picks DT patches, so they form a separate history there, and
Linux code has no place in there. U-Boot for instance pull this
repo now on a regular basis. So keeping those things strictly separate
is really important here.
Cheers,
Andre.
> >> > Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl and fix reported warnings. Then please
> >> > run 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' and (probably) fix more warnings.
> >> > Some warnings can be ignored, especially from --strict run, but the code
> >> > here looks like it needs a fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning
> >> > is not clear.
> >>
> >> Yeah, it is not clear what do you want me to do, assuming the previous
> >> similar change to sun50i-a64-ccu.h did essentially the same, see
> >> 71b597ef5d46a326fb0d5cbfc1c6ff1d73cdc7f9
>
