Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Henry Sun <henrysun@google.com>,
	Bob Moragues <moragues@chromium.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 19:14:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8a4999b9-862e-f698-28b9-42d26f680367@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=XKC_fbBzna8TgiPRmPH_=AQ3ckv2EEjoNvayKQ83Uciw@mail.gmail.com>

On 21/07/2022 20:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2022 15:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not worth sending a new version for, but normally I expect the
>>>>> bindings to be patch #1 and the dts change to be patch #2. In any
>>>>> case:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>>>
>>>> I would say worth v4, because otherwise patches is not bisectable.
>>>
>>> You're saying because `dtbs_check` will fail between the two?
>>
>> Yes
> 
> OK. Then I assume you agree that reversing the order of the patches
> won't help, only combining the two patches into one.
> 
> 
>>> How does
>>> flipping the order help? If `dtbs_check` needs to be bisectable then
>>> these two need to be one patch, but I was always under the impression
>>> that we wanted bindings patches separate from dts patches.
>>
>> I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must be separate from
>> DTS. The only restriction is DTS cannot go with drivers.
> 
> I have always heard that best practice is to have bindings in a patch
> by themselves. 

Yes, bindings must be separate patch, no one here objects this. You said
they cannot go together via one maintainer tree or I misunderstood?

> If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their
> minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them
> separate.

Nothing changed. Bindings must be separate. They will be applied by
maintainer and, if correctly ordered, this is bisectable.
> 
> 
>> Bindings for boards go pretty often with DTS (subarch). This is exactly
>> what maintainers do, e.g.:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/log/?h=arm64-for-5.20
>> Bindings for hardware should go via subsystem maintainer (drivers).
> 
> OK, fair that in this case both the bindings and the yaml will land
> through the Qualcomm tree. I guess it's really up to Bjorn and whether
> he'd prefer "make dtbs_check" to be bisectable or whether he'd prefer
> the bindings and dts change to be in separate patches from each other.

??? The patches must be separate commits and if properly ordered in one
branch they are bisectable.

Best regards,
Krzysztof