On 3/13/2024 5:11 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 13/03/2024 08:55, Tengfei Fan wrote:
Wasn't this applied?
My test code base on tag: next-20240308, this patch is still not applied.
In fact, the following dt binding check warning only can be got before
this patch is applied.
Please read all emails in the previous thread. You ignored two emails in
the past and apparently one more recent.
I don't know if you mean I ignored the email which related with "Patch
applied" tag from Linus Walleij. If so, the following is the reasion why
I still include this patch:
Yep, that's the one. Please do not send patches which were already
applied. It causes unnecessary effort on reviewer and maintainer side.
I synced the latest upstream code on 03/12/2024, the latest tag is
next-20240308, this tag still doesn't include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2].
Happens, considering Linus applied it after 8th of March, I think.
Dt binding check still get warning if I only send [PATCH v3 2/2] patch
to upstream base on next-20240308. so I include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2]
If you send patch 1+2, dt_binding_check will have exactly the same
result. I don't know about what sort of dt binding check you talk, but
for all cases: you changed nothing by sending these two patches in that
regard. Only noise on the lists.
The dt binding check failed which Rob Herring remind me in previous
patch series as the following:
This does not make any sense. Whether Rob runs his test on previous or
future next, changes nothing in regard of this patchset being sent with
duplicated patch or not. The result will be exactly the same for Rob.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm4450-tlmm.example.dtb:
/example-0/pinctrl@f100000: failed to match any schema with
compatible: ['qcom,sm4450-tlmm']
This failed is introduced by
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20231206020840.33228-2-quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx/.
Something got broken aroud -m flags for dtschema, so indeed no reports
this unmatched compatibles warning when this patch was revriwed. We also
have some discusstion in patch email.
Again, not related at all whether you send patch *which was applied* or not.
The patch[PATCH v3 1/2] is made for fix this previous patch dt binding
check failed. So dt binding check failed will disappear after this
patch[PATCH v3 1/2] is applied.
And who is supposed to run that dt binding check and on what base? Your
patch changes absolutely nothing in that regard, just creates confusion.
And the fact that you keep arguing over this simple case, reminds me
other clueless discussions I had with some Qualcomm folks. None of the
arguments you brought here justify sending patch which was applied.
Sending duplicated patch isn't a correct approach, I will avoid making
similar mistakes in the future.
in patch series even if this patch have "Patch applied" tag.
Looking forward to getting your advice if submitting patch series this
way is problematic.
Do not send patches which are known to be applied.
Yes, I will be careful not to resend the patch which have already been
applied in the future work.
Then why do you keep arguing that sending this duplicated patch was
correct approach?
There may be some confusion here. Sending this duplicated patch isn't a
correct approach, I will not send duplicated patch again in the future
upstream work.
Do you think it is necessary to send another version patch series for
remove this applied patch[PATCH v3 1/2] from patch series?
No. It is merge window, please read process documents in Documentation
directory. Then please read Qualcomm upstreaming guide.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
Thx and BRs,
Tengfei Fan
