Re: [PATCH 21/37] dt-bindings: clock: add r9a08g045 CPG clocks and resets definitions

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/09/2023 09:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:24 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2023 17:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 07:51:41AM +0300, Claudiu wrote:
>>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add RZ/G3S (R9A08G045) Clock Pulse Generator (CPG) core clocks, module
>>>>> clocks and resets.
>>>>
>>>> This is part of the binding, so it can be squashed with the previous
>>>> patch. The ack there still stands.
>>>
>>> Usually we keep it as a separate patch, to be queued in an immutable
>>> branch, as it is included by both the clock driver and by DTS, but
>>> not by the yaml bindings file.
>>
>> Binding also should be shared, so you get compatible documented in both
>> places (thus lack of checkpatch warnings). It still should be one patch.
> 
> Hmm, I see your point...
> 
> For core Renesas SoCs components where I am (sub)maintainer for both
> the driver subsystem and the DTS, I can take care of that.
> For the generic case, that will need a lot of cooperation with subsystem
> maintainers, to create lots of small immutable branches with DT bindings
> and DT binding definition updates.

Wait, I think I was too vague.
"Binding also should be shared..."
s/should/can/

I did not want to say that every time bindings should be shared, but
rather that if already sharing the headers, you can share the bindings
and you will get benefits - happy checkpatch in both places.

> 
> Alternatively, are you (the DT maintainers) prepared to handle all
> DT bindings and DT binding definition updates, and create immutable
> branches for all of them (in a timely manner, of course)?
> Then we can start enforcing the rule that driver and DTS updates must
> not cause checkpatch warnings for missing compatible values, and must
> not be applied without merging the corresponding immutable branch first.

I don't think we are ready for any of this, but it is just my incorrect
English or too fast typing before :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof