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
