From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528BBC43334 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 17:26:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235898AbiGVR0n (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:26:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49392 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235843AbiGVR0k (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 13:26:40 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E90771BE1 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id z25so8743772lfr.2 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:26:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qoN3gDHWVDLFAUm42xgoSLsUq4+PL4CyeQJ0bjtEpCU=; b=ve4ktK15OM0pfiMIrqujRlezfMGvsEQ5YAqFux57vtJ3J20/mY8UAzgLg0HYm9+N0u 47DSWQ4U+8NAqESzQcHSEuXsrh6z6hFoIIPVXAOnzYapERTRn/arZX134XW7HojrduPm j3aXxulLfoKC9EnQf91v4gAF1rFUJQAjANXYapg0REhSI+MckWQA7/YSXRscN2wXptKX I7VUzN7iixc9WPegThHkQErY2lzuneQJ3ooy9JDLp5aHN9CgJKLQ3hjPNRRjtMxdfWqD K/MvnpJlCBOquEp1u040AFUgxkZYV2LyqvPkfJvlLsA/1A7kHv2pilYQSS9CZfLHy5uW paeg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qoN3gDHWVDLFAUm42xgoSLsUq4+PL4CyeQJ0bjtEpCU=; b=yAbXwXz+V7o0WnMTps5+SOVjTTUDQFdt9DaxknXEh44pBn2iAeipaYUcLidJHmb+Qs 8AKrNhm/2B4khgc6NO9uXKfQcnKKb6PcuikoTavTzyvM7pxZOQFTsjHrDq5m+f6ccFYt DQ1D8/jWfje7JuhYRpM33SvkHuYk+/NixqocKwoonI6agTGGoS5S0M2CGDVmYXojjpHG WmfHu6nUQfkFM/+57jYywk/AuPBHtXpnODy6Mb7qYYMehApRVqB26dk55NZg0GDe3hKe dROZojKi7FasyE+g8mwojqrYYj4or0OlYHtAe3UMMl9kp4EKuFBS9Co2J3GIruc3CDhA mMew== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+xdHj85TCpm83WEeQx9n4K2FH/6Ipxj90a98xWw0niGaW4HyJP +KAFISVV1ff8F+2zp/3RF4nuhg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tWDz3YFjB2oREEYfHT63bgnHfvazVkGCurcjXwv9zhQAkymmmPouZ7MaolfC9GM8Hvk+Iykw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5989:0:b0:48a:74a6:8658 with SMTP id w9-20020ac25989000000b0048a74a68658mr384428lfn.660.1658510797594; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.10.173] (93.81-167-86.customer.lyse.net. [81.167.86.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k12-20020a2eb74c000000b0025d40241c1dsm1252846ljo.6.2022.07.22.10.26.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9b6b5e2a-a78d-9aac-5eca-e8231ba6db55@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 19:26:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Content-Language: en-US To: Doug Anderson Cc: Yunlong Jia , LKML , Henry Sun , Bob Moragues , Andy Gross , Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Rob Herring , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , linux-arm-msm References: <20220721033918.v3.1.I10519ca1bf88233702a90e296088808d18cdc7b1@changeid> <20220721033918.v3.2.I7ecbb7eeb58c5e6a33e32a3abf4d6874e6cb725c@changeid> <4b2fe9d0-f590-0fac-79fa-bb05da1d61df@linaro.org> <8a4999b9-862e-f698-28b9-42d26f680367@linaro.org> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/07/2022 19:23, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > wrote: >> >> On 21/07/2022 20:29, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. > > OK, I think this is the disconnect here. > > No matter what order Jimmy's patches land in, it won't be bisectable > from the standpoint of "make dtbs_check". This is what I've been > trying to say. > > * If the bindings land first then the device tree won't have sku6 and > will fail "make dtbs_check" > > * If the dts lands first then the bindings won't have sku6 and will > fail "make dtbs_check". > > Am I missing something? Ah, you're right... The patch changes the bindings of a board instead of bringing a new variant. Yeah, this cannot be bisectable if kept separate, thus order does no matter. > > So when you said "I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must > be separate from DTS" and that you cared about "make dtbs_check" being > bisectable that you were saying you wanted these squashed into one > patch. I guess that's not the case. > Best regards, Krzysztof