Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p

[Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>