On 9/5/2024 7:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/09/2024 16:15, Nikunj Kela wrote: >> On 9/5/2024 7:09 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 05/09/2024 16:03, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>>> On 9/5/2024 1:04 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 04/09/2024 23:06, Nikunj Kela wrote: >>>>>> On 9/4/2024 9:58 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>>>>>> Sorry, didn't realize SPI uses different subject format than other >>>>>>>> subsystems. Will fix in v3. Thanks >>>>>>> Each subsystem is free to use its own form. e.g for netdev you will >>>>>>> want the prefix [PATCH net-next v42] net: stmmac: dwmac-qcom-ethqos: >>>>>> of course they are! No one is disputing that. >>>>>>> This is another reason why you should be splitting these patches per >>>>>>> subsystem, and submitting both the DT bindings and the code changes as >>>>>>> a two patch patchset. You can then learn how each subsystem names its >>>>>>> patches. >>>>>> Qualcomm QUPs chips have serial engines that can be configured as >>>>>> UART/I2C/SPI so QUPs changes require to be pushed in one series for all >>>>>> 3 subsystems as they all are dependent. >>>>> No, they are not dependent. They have never been. Look how all other >>>>> upstreaming process worked in the past. >>>> Top level QUP node(patch#18) includes i2c,spi,uart nodes. >>>> soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml validate those subnodes against respective >>>> yaml. The example that is added in YAML file for QUP node will not find >>>> sa8255p compatibles if all 4 yaml(qup, i2c, spi, serial nodes) are not >>>> included in the same series. >>>> >>> So where is the dependency? I don't see it. >> Ok, what is your suggestion on dt-schema check failure in that case as I >> mentioned above? Shall we remove examples from yaml that we added? >> >> >>> Anyway, if you insist, >>> provide reasons why this should be the only one patchset - from all >>> SoCs, all companies, all developers - getting an exception from standard >>> merging practice and from explicit rule about driver change. See >>> submitting bindings. >>> >>> This was re-iterated over and over, but you keep claiming you need some >>> sort of special treatment. If so, please provide arguments WHY this >>> requires special treatment and *all* other contributions are fine with it. > You did not respond to above about explaining why this patchset needs > special treatment, so I assume there is no exception here to be granted > so any new version will follow standard process (see submitting bindings > / writing bindings). > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Things will be clear after you see the driver changes. Without looking at the code, this discussion won't lead to anything constructive. So I deferred the QUP related discussion until driver patches are posted. Thanks, -Nikunj >
