Re: [PATCH v3 21/23] regulator: dt-bindings: update samsung,s2mpa01.yaml reference

From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 21/23] regulator: dt-bindings: update samsung,s2mpa01.yaml reference
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:59:56 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YXjArKJ1nw3rkx97@robh.at.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211020073013.6d144c0d@sal.lan>

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 07:30:13AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:04:59 +0100
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> escreveu:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 09:04:20AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > 
> > > To mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover.
> > > See [PATCH v3 00/23] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1634630485.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org/  
> > 
> > It'd be a bit easier to put a note in here about what the dependencies
> > are rather than forcing people to go out to a link to figure out what's
> > going on unless it's complicated. 
> >
> > For a case like this where there's no
> > dependencies or real relationship between the patches it's probably
> > better to just not thread everything and send the patches separately to
> > everyone, the threading is just adding noise and confusion.
> 
> It is not that easy, unfortunately. On some cases (specially due to
> DT binding renames) some patches change the context of a hunk, affecting
> a subsequent patch.

Those should be reduced now. I've been checking the renames since early 
August. July really, but MAINTAINERS was not getting checked initially.

> I tried a couple of times in the past to send the patches individually,
> but that was messier, as there was harder for people to apply them,
> as, instead of running b4 just once to get everything, maintainers
> would need to apply each patch individually. Also, there were cases
> where the patch order would be relevant, due to context changes.

Just spliting between in Linus' tree and only in next would help me. The 
former I know I can just apply.

> Btw, talking about what it would be easier, the best procedure to
> adopt is to run:
> 
> 	./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check 
> 
> Before sending/applying patches touching documents.

Good luck with that. :(

> That would avoid the need of such fixup patches ;-)
> 
> Unfortunately, in the specific case of dt-bindings, things are not
> that easy, as doc changes usually go via one tree, while references 
> to them come from other places.
> 
> Regards,
> Mauro
> 