Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm: dts: r7s72100: Add peripherals nodes

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Simon,

On Wednesday 11 Jan 2017 11:33:17 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:58:19PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 Jan 2017 16:07:01 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> >>> From: Magnus Damm <damm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> 
> >>> This is a squash of several commits, adding peripherals groups
> >>> configuration to r7s72100 device tree, and enabling some of them on
> >>> Genmai evaluation board
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 
> >> Thanks for the rework!
> >> 
> >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100-genmai.dts |  51 ++++++++++++
> >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi       | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 
> >> This path should be split in multiple parts:
> >>   - Add the pfc node to r7s72100.dtsi,
> >>   - Add the gpio nodes to r7s72100.dtsi,
> >>   - 4 patches for r7s72100-genmai.dts, adding support for LEDs, SCIF,
> >>     Ethernet, and SPI.
> > 
> > I can agree about the .dtsi/.dts split, but isn't this going a bit
> > overboard ?
>
> I would like the split so that different patches touch different files
> to be made.

That's usually what I do, at least when it comes to device tree files. When 
reworking core code in a subsystem patches often have to touch multiple files, 
but that's different.

> I am willing to be flexible regarding adding more than one IP block in a
> single patch if the patches would otherwise be very small and unlikely to
> lead to breakage.

Splitting the GPIO and PFC nodes in two patches would be fine with me, but 
given that they're tightly related, I think it makes more sense to keep them 
in one patch in this particular case.

> From my PoV a key motivation for splitting things up is to make it easier
> to selectively revert or backport individual features. I personally don't
> have much cause to do either on a fine-grained basis of late. So I'm happy
> to consider being more flexible with regards to patch granularity.

I usually try to split addition of unrelated IP cores in multiple patches. On 
the other hand, when adding multiple IP cores in one series, they often end up 
one next to the other in the source, creating conflicts if you try to backport 
selectively. I don't think that's ideal either.

In this particular case, the changes to arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100-genmai.dts 
are twofold :

- add a GPIO LEDs node
- configure pinctrl for the ethernet, spi and scif devices

We could split that in two patches, but I probably wouldn't split the last one 
in three patches.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html