On 10/01/2024 21:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I have send it as a separate commit. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20231214144954.3833998-1-ninad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>>>> Why did you do that? It now just adds undocumented compatibles to the >>>>>>>>> driver. Please, as Rob requested, work with Lukas on his series to make >>>>>>>>> sure that these devices are documented. >>>>>>>> I think krzysztof kozlowski suggested to send these patches separately: >>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1c5ace65-2fd8-4503-b22f-e0f564d1c83f@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did I misunderstood it? Do you guys want me to include that commit again? >>>>>>> My comment was in DTS thread under specific DTS patch. How did you >>>>>>> figure out it applies to driver and bindings? This does not make sense. >>>>>> Sorry for the misunderstanding. Where do you want me to add driver >>>>>> patch? Before all DTS patches or after all DTS patches? >>>>> Does not matter, why do you insist on combining them with DTS? Drivers >>>>> and bindings are going together. DTS better separate, although depending >>>>> on the case can be together. >>>>> >>>> I have combined DTS and Driver because DTS was using compatibility >>>> string which is not upstream yet hence I thought it is logical to send >>>> it under same patchset. >>> >>> Sometimes yes, sometimes not. DTS must not go via driver subsystem, so >>> sending it in the same patchset has implications on maintainers applying >>> it. Some like it, some don't and you will be nagged for combining them. >>> >> >> "DTS must not go via driver subsystem" >> >> I always thought the guideline was to submit separate _patches_ for dts >> and driver changes, but as part of a single series. I didn't know that >> there is a rule to submit separate patch _series_. I also didn't know >> (and as far as I know no one called me on it) that I am not supposed >> to _apply_ dts changes. So far, I typically applied dts changes together >> with driver patches after receiving an Acked-by: or Reviewed-by: >> from a devicetree maintainer. > > I did not notice you applying them, but such guideline - DTS must go via > respective SoC tree - was always repeated by me and SoC maintainers. > Just like gazillion other things probably was not documented... or even > if it was documented, it would be so deep among hundreds of other rules > nobody would find it. :) > >> >> This exchange suggests that I did it all wrong. Should I reject devicetree >> patches submitted as part of a driver patch series going forward ? > > I propose: just ignore them. The SoC maintainer will pick them up. > >> Should I not apply dts patches submitted as part of a patch series ? > > No, please do not apply them. Eh, English can be confusing. Let's make it easier to grasp: "Please do not apply DTS patches to a driver subsystem." Best regards, Krzysztof
