RE: [PATCH v2 0/8] treewide: Add R-Car S4-8 Ethernet Switch support

From: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: "kishon@ti.com" <kishon@ti.com>,
	"vkoul@kernel.org" <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"richardcochran@gmail.com" <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
	"robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org" 
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"geert+renesas@glider.be" <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	"linux-phy@lists.infradead.org" <linux-phy@lists.infradead.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
	<linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/8] treewide: Add R-Car S4-8 Ethernet Switch support
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 01:31:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <TYBPR01MB53411BA181FDA6FEADDFED38D84E9@TYBPR01MB5341.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yyu38hhzNcjFfgCN@lunn.ch>

Hi Andrew,

> From: Andrew Lunn, Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 10:19 AM
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 06:06:40PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:46:34 +0000 Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> > > I thought we have 2 types about the use of the treewide:
> > > 1) Completely depends on multiple subsystems and/or
> > >    change multiple subsystems in a patch.
> > > 2) Convenient for review.
> > >
> > > This patch series type is the 2) above. However, should I use
> > > treewide for the 1) only?
> >
> > I thought "treewide" means you're changing something across the tree.
> > If you want to get a new platform reviewed I'd just post the patches
> > as RFC without any prefix in the subject. But I could be wrong.
> >
> > My main point (which I did a pretty poor job of actually making)
> > was that for the networking driver to be merged it needs to get
> > posted separately.
> 
> Expanding on that...
> 
> You have a clock patch, which should go via the clock subsystem Maintainer.
> You have a PHY path, which should go via the generic PHY subsystem Maintainer.
> You have an Ethernet driver and binding patch, which can go via netdev,
> Cc: the device tree list.
> And a patch to add the needed nodes to .dts files which can go via the
> renesas Maintainer.
> 
> At an early RFC stage, posting them all at once can be useful, to help
> see all the bits and pieces. But by the time you have code ready for
> merging, it should really go via easu subsystem Maintainer.

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I completely understood it.

> All these patches should then meet up in next, and work. If any are
> missing, the driver should return -ENODEV or similar.

Yes, I did test such things.

> If there are any compile time dependencies in these patches, then we
> need to handle them differently. But at a very quick glance, i don't
> see any.

You're correct. This patch series doesn't depend in compile time.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

> 	 Andrew