Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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