On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 4:43 PM Justin Swartz <justin.swartz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2024-03-17 17:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 17/03/2024 16:22, Justin Swartz wrote: > >> On 2024-03-17 17:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 16/03/2024 16:49, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:54 AM Justin Swartz > >>>> <justin.swartz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> This set of patches was created with the intention of cleaning up > >>>>> arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi so that it is aligned with > >>>>> the Devicetree Sources (DTS) Coding Style [1] [2] guide. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst > >>>>> > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html > >>>>> > >>>>> Justin Swartz (14): > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpu node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpuintc node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc regulator attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder sysc node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gpio node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder i2c node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder spi0 node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: move pinctrl and sort its children > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gic node attributes > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder ethernet node attributes and > >>>>> kids > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pcie node attributes and > >>>>> children > >>>>> mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pci?_phy attributes > >>> > >>> These are all simple cleanups for the same file. It's one patch, not > >>> 15. > >> > >> I agree these are all simple cleanups. > >> > >> Even though the cleanup pattern was the same, or very similar, > >> for each node affected, the intention was to isolate each change > >> to a single node (or a grouping of nodes of that seemed logical > >> to me) so that if anyone had any objections, the discussion would > >> be easier to follow in subthreads identifiable by patch names (and > > > > Objections to what? Coding style? Coding style is defined so you either > > implement it or not... and even if someone disagrees with one line > > swap, > > why it cannot be done like for every contribution: inline? > > I had been asked to include empty lines when I had left them out when > I had contributed a patch regarding the serial nodes, which resulted in > a second version of that patch. > > > > Organize your patches how described in submitting patches: one per > > logical change. Logical change is to reorder all properties in one > > file, > > without functional impact. > > If I had accidentally deleted or modified an attribute in the process > of cleanup, this could have had a functional impact. It's easier to > notice this sort of omission when the wall of text you're confronted > with is as small as possible, and not multiple pages long. > > > >> But if there're no objections and it lessens the burden on > >> maintainers upstream to have less patches to apply, then I have no > >> problem combining them into a single patch. > >> > > > > Yeah, one review response instead of 14 responses... One commit in the > > history instead of 14. > > I agree that 1 commit vs 14 is better. > > But for future reference: is it not enough for the Reviewed-by: trailer > to be sent in response to the cover letter of a patch set if a reviewer > has looked at the entire set? It is enough, AFAICT. I found your patchset very easy to review so I am ok with the patchset as it is. However, at the end this will be through the mips tree, so let's do what Thomas prefers: add all patches as they are or squash all of them in one commit. Thanks, Sergio Paracuellos
