Re: [PATCH v2 24/28] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: convert to dtschema

[Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 11:45 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2022 22:38, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 6:10 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway DTS and dtschema will have to wait for one release, because they
> >> depend on samsung pinctrl driver change (patch #2).
> >
> > What about I put that (and maybe this schema) on an immutable
> > branch so you can pull the commit into your for-arm-soc branch and
> > put the DTS changes on top?
>
> That would be a solution if not a policy for arm-soc of keeping DTS
> separate. Arnd and Olof since some time are not happy when DTS branch
> receives any driver updates.
>
> Arnd, Olof,
> This is a set of dtschema conversion + DTS alignment with new schema:
> 1. Driver change necessary to accept new DTS (driver depends on node
> names and this has to change because of dtschema),
> 2. DTS commits depending on above, which convert node name to new format,
> 3. Finally dtschema requiring new naming of the GPIO nodes.
>
> If I got correctly, the policy of not mixing drivers and DTS requires
> that #2 above (DTS changes) will wait for one more release. During the
> time, if dtschema (#3 above) is applied, there will be new warnings
> about non-compliant DTS.
>
> Do you see any chance of merging driver + DTS + dtschema via same tree
> in same release?

Our general guidance to separate DTS and driver changes is to avoid
large entangled changes between the two, and to discourage a developer
mentality of "the implementation is the binding".

I think this is a good example of when it makes sense to bring in what
is a fairly small and clean driver change to deal with this. So the
right answer here is to stage such a stable branch and merge into both
arm-soc and the pinctrl subsystem trees as proposed.


-Olof