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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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