On 08/11/2022 23:22, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:55:58PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 08/11/2022 17:33, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >>> Add a DT binding for the Apple Mac System Management Controller. >> >> Drop the second, redundant "binding" from subject. It's already in prefix. > > Yet another thing that's been there from the start... how many more > things are you going to pick up in subsequent versions of the patch? > When does this stop? > > In any case, taking your comment literally, > > "dt-bindings: mfd: add for Apple Mac System Management Controller" > > makes no sense, so presumably you want something more than that. dt-bindings: mfd: add Apple Mac System Management Controller > > In any case, I see several recent cases already merged which follow > the pattern that I've used and that you've reviewed. Any many received comments to fix. I wouldn't mention it if there was no second issue - your patchset is non-bisectable. Since you must resend, please adjust the subject. > >>> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/apple,smc.yaml | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/apple,smc.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/apple,smc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/apple,smc.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..014eba5a1bbc >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/apple,smc.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/apple,smc.yaml# >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> + >>> +title: Apple Mac System Management Controller >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +description: >>> + Apple Mac System Management Controller implements various functions >>> + such as GPIO, RTC, power, reboot. >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + items: >>> + - enum: >>> + - apple,t6000-smc >>> + - apple,t8103-smc >>> + - apple,t8112-smc >>> + - const: apple,smc >>> + >>> + reg: >>> + items: >>> + - description: SMC area >>> + - description: SRAM area >>> + >>> + reg-names: >>> + items: >>> + - const: smc >>> + - const: sram >>> + >>> + mboxes: >>> + maxItems: 1 >>> + >>> + gpio: >>> + $ref: /schemas/gpio/gpio-macsmc.yaml >> >> So this depends on other patch, so: >> 1. You need mention the dependency in cover letter (nothing there), >> 2. Re-order patches. >> >> The GPIO cannot go separate tree and this must be explicitly communicated. > > Sigh, getting an order that is sensible is really bloody difficult. > I'm quite sure Lee is only going to want to apply the mfd bits. Then > what do we do with the other bits? GPIO stuff via the GPIO tree, then > wait a cycle before the rest can be merged. Or what? It's nothing new... bindings headers, drivers and DTS all have it since years. Your case is actually easy to solve: 1. Re-order patches, describe dependency, get ack from one maintainer so it can go via other. 2. Squash patches and describe dependency. Only one maintainer will need to pick it up (with second's ack). I don't understand why we talk about such basics, you are far way more experienced in kernel development than many of us... Best regards, Krzysztof
