On 15/11/2022 11:44, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:03:24 +0100 > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 15/11/2022 07:01, Jernej Škrabec wrote: >>> Dne četrtek, 10. november 2022 ob 08:35:39 CET je Vinod Koul napisal(a): >>>> On 06-11-22, 15:48, Andre Przywara wrote: >>>>> From: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> The F1C100s SoC has one USB OTG port connected to a MUSB controller. >>>>> >>>>> Add support for its USB PHY. >>>> >>>> This does not apply for me, please rebase and resend >>>> >>>> Also, consider splitting phy patches from this. I dont think there is >>>> any dependency >>> >>> DT patches in this series depend on functionality added here. >>> >> >> DTS always goes separately from driver changes because it is a hardware >> description. Depending on driver means you have potential ABI break, so >> it is already a warning sign. > > We understand that ;-) > What Jernej meant was that the DTS patches at the end depend on patch > 01/10, which adds to the PHY binding doc. I am not sure if Vinod's > suggestion was about splitting off 01/10, 03/10, and 10/10, or just the > two latter which touch the driver. > > I can split off 03/10 and 10/10, rebased on top of linux-phy.git/next, and > send that to Vinod. > Then I would keep 01/10 in a respin of this series here, to satisfy the > dependency of the later DTS patches, and Vinod can pick that one patch from > there? There is no hard dependency of DTS on bindings. You can split these (and some maintainers prefer that way) and in DTS patches just provide the link to the bindings, saying it is in progress. The bindings should be however kept with driver changes as it goes the same way. Best regards, Krzysztof
