On 08/01/2024 19:15, Elad Nachman wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 8:01 PM >> To: Elad Nachman <enachman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; >> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; >> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: usb: Add Marvell ac5 >> >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 05:47:24PM +0000, Elad Nachman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 7:15 PM >>>> To: Elad Nachman <enachman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; >>>> krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; >>>> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >>>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: usb: Add Marvell ac5 >>>> >>>> External Email >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> -- On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 05:25:57PM +0200, Elad Nachman wrote: >>>>> From: Elad Nachman <enachman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Add Marvell ac5 device tree bindings to generic EHCI. >>>>> This compatible enables the Marvell Orion platform code to >>>>> properly configure the DMA mask for the Marvell AC5 SOC. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Elad Nachman <enachman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Maybe I am dumb, but I don't understand how this does what the >>>> commit message says. There's no fallback to generic-ehci or any >>>> other compatible that is already understood by the driver. >>>> >>>> What am I missing? >>> >>> Following guidance by Andrew Lunn on my mmc patchset, I have split the >>> patchset Into a single patch for dt-bindings review and another for USB >> driver review. >> >> I don't understand that advice. dt-bindings should (almost) always be with >> the driver. Otherwise you just confuse people like me. >> >> Perhaps Andrew meant sending dt*s* patches separately from the driver & >> bindings? > > The rational was different people making the actual merge, into different intermediate git REPOs, before mering into linux-next. Sorry, but NAK. The submitting-patches for bindings expresses this as well: bindings go with the driver. There was never an advice from Andrew about splitting binding. He clearly said that FIRST PATCH, so the DTS, goes via separate tree. Absolutely nothing about splitting the binding. https://lore.kernel.org/all/cfbbe706-5953-488c-9bff-f72f6d00b44f@xxxxxxx/ Best regards, Krzysztof
