On 05/09/2024 16:03, Nikunj Kela wrote: > > On 9/5/2024 1:04 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 04/09/2024 23:06, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>> On 9/4/2024 9:58 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>> Sorry, didn't realize SPI uses different subject format than other >>>>> subsystems. Will fix in v3. Thanks >>>> Each subsystem is free to use its own form. e.g for netdev you will >>>> want the prefix [PATCH net-next v42] net: stmmac: dwmac-qcom-ethqos: >>> of course they are! No one is disputing that. >>>> This is another reason why you should be splitting these patches per >>>> subsystem, and submitting both the DT bindings and the code changes as >>>> a two patch patchset. You can then learn how each subsystem names its >>>> patches. >>> Qualcomm QUPs chips have serial engines that can be configured as >>> UART/I2C/SPI so QUPs changes require to be pushed in one series for all >>> 3 subsystems as they all are dependent. >> No, they are not dependent. They have never been. Look how all other >> upstreaming process worked in the past. > > Top level QUP node(patch#18) includes i2c,spi,uart nodes. > soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml validate those subnodes against respective > yaml. The example that is added in YAML file for QUP node will not find > sa8255p compatibles if all 4 yaml(qup, i2c, spi, serial nodes) are not > included in the same series. > So where is the dependency? I don't see it. Anyway, if you insist, provide reasons why this should be the only one patchset - from all SoCs, all companies, all developers - getting an exception from standard merging practice and from explicit rule about driver change. See submitting bindings. This was re-iterated over and over, but you keep claiming you need some sort of special treatment. If so, please provide arguments WHY this requires special treatment and *all* other contributions are fine with it. Best regards, Krzysztof
