чт, 19 сент. 2024 г. в 10:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On 18/09/2024 14:53, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > > пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > >>> Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- > >>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD > >> bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) > > > > Indeed, my dts has no dependency on this patch. > > However, my dts has dependency on MAX77705, so AFAIU, > > I should send this patch separately, while leaving other drivers in same > > patchset, right? > > How DTS could have dependency on MAX77705? It's a clear no go - broken > patch. And something very weird, almost never happening for new hardware. > Oh right, dts only depends on driver bindings, not driver code, so I can send dts patches with bindings in separate series, and per subsystem series for new driver code.
