On 19/09/2024 10:40, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > чт, 19 сент. 2024 г. в 10:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> On 18/09/2024 14:53, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: >>> пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: >>>>> Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD >>>> bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) >>> >>> Indeed, my dts has no dependency on this patch. >>> However, my dts has dependency on MAX77705, so AFAIU, >>> I should send this patch separately, while leaving other drivers in same >>> patchset, right? >> >> How DTS could have dependency on MAX77705? It's a clear no go - broken >> patch. And something very weird, almost never happening for new hardware. >> > Oh right, dts only depends on driver bindings, not driver code, so I > can send dts > patches with bindings in separate series, and per subsystem series for new > driver code. This is how you can organize patchsets: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231121-topic-sm8650-upstream-dt-v3-0-db9d0507ffd3@xxxxxxxxxx/ Here is a brief description how to organize the patchset: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/CADrjBPq_0nUYRABKpskRF_dhHu+4K=duPVZX==0pr+cjSL_caQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m2d9130a1342ab201ab49670fa6c858ee3724c83c Best regards, Krzysztof
