Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: update compatible name for match with driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/03/2024 02:30, Tengfei Fan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/12/2024 6:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/03/2024 08:47, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 3:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2024 03:58, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>>>>> Use compatible name "qcom,sm4450-tlmm" instead of "qcom,sm4450-pinctrl"
>>>>> to match the compatible name in sm4450 pinctrl driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 7bf8b78f86db ("dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: Add SM4450 pinctrl")
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm4450-tlmm.yaml | 2 +-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't this applied?
>>>
>>> My test code base on tag: next-20240308, this patch is still not applied.
>>>
>>> In fact, the following dt binding check warning only can be got before
>>> this patch is applied.
>>>
>>
>> Please read all emails in the previous thread. You ignored two emails in
>> the past and apparently one more recent.
> 
> I don't know if you mean I ignored the email which related with "Patch 
> applied" tag from Linus Walleij. If so, the following is the reasion why 
> I still include this patch:

Yep, that's the one. Please do not send patches which were already
applied. It causes unnecessary effort on reviewer and maintainer side.

> 
> I synced the latest upstream code on 03/12/2024, the latest tag is 
> next-20240308, this tag still doesn't include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2].

Happens, considering Linus applied it after 8th of March, I think.

> 
> Dt binding check still get warning if I only send [PATCH v3 2/2] patch 
> to upstream base on next-20240308. so I include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2] 

If you send patch 1+2, dt_binding_check will have exactly the same
result. I don't know about what sort of dt binding check you talk, but
for all cases: you changed nothing by sending these two patches in that
regard. Only noise on the lists.

> in patch series even if this patch have "Patch applied" tag.
> 
> Looking forward to getting your advice if submitting patch series this 
> way is problematic.

Do not send patches which are known to be applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof