On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 14:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20/09/2022 10:48, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > > > On 9/20/22 12:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 20/09/2022 00:08, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > >> > >> (...) > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Qualcomm crypto engine (qce) is available on several Snapdragon SoCs. > >>> The qce block supports hardware accelerated algorithms for encryption > >>> and authentication. It also provides support for aes, des, 3des > >>> encryption algorithms and sha1, sha256, hmac(sha1), hmac(sha256) > >>> authentication algorithms. > >>> > >>> Note that this patchset is dependent on the dt-bindings patchset (see [1]) sent to devicetree list. > >>> > >>> [1]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220919195618.926227-1-bhupesh.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> > >> If it is dependent on the bindings only, keep them together. However I > >> don't think this is the only dependency. You add here several > >> compatibles which are not supported. > > > > > > Please go through the cover letter where I mentioned that: > > 'As per Bjorn's suggestion on irc, broke down the patchset into 4 > > separate patchsets, one each for the following areas to allow easier > > review and handling from the respective maintainer(s): > > 'arm-msm', 'crypto', 'dma' and 'devicetree' > > This patchset is directed for the 'devicetree' tree / area.' > > > > Basically now the patchset which had around 23 patches in v5 will send > > out as 4 separate patchsets one each for 'arm-msm', 'crypto', 'dma' and > > 'devicetree' trees. > > > > So when all the respective subsets are picked up, all the compatibles > > are in place. > > and none of reviewers can find them, because you linked only bindings. > Keeping bindings separate from everything is not good approach. Either > they should be with DTS or with driver changes. Otherwise how can we > even look that they are matching DTS? > > Keeping them separate even makes impression there are no ABI breaks and > bisectability issues... I see your point, but as I mentioned this was as per suggestions from other maintainers only :) Perhaps a good topic for the next LPC maintainers meetup - i.e. would maintainers be more happy with subpatches for their specific area v/s being cc'ed on a single patchset which touches other areas as well (but are required for enabling a feature in its entirety). Thanks, Bhupesh
