Hello, On Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 10:17 AM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 16/02/2024 10:05, Théo Lebrun wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 8:59 AM CET, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 15/02/2024 17:52, Théo Lebrun wrote: > >>> Add resets properties to each I2C controller. This depends on the > >>> reset-eyeq5 platform reset controller driver. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >> > >> This should be squashed with previous patch adding i2c controllers. > >> Don't add incomplete nodes just to fix them in next patch. > > > > The goal was to isolate reset phandles to a single patch. The series > > That was what you did, not the goal. If that's the goal, then it is > clearly wrong. > > > with this patch dropped works because resets in their default state are > > deasserted, so this isn't a fix. And it allows testing the series on > > hardware with only the base platform series, which I found useful. > > Series or half-of-series? Anyway, commits must be logical chunks, so one > chunk is to add I2C controllers, not "part of I2C controllers". DTS is > also independent of drivers (and it will go via different trees!), so > whatever dependency you think of, it does not exist. My reasoning was focused on my point-of-view as a contributor and tester of the series. Your explanation makes sense; I had never thought this through from the maintainer's POV. Thanks, -- Théo Lebrun, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
