* [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade @ 2022-07-21 3:58 Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 3:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Yunlong Jia ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Yunlong Jia @ 2022-07-21 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LKML Cc: Henry Sun, Bob Moragues, Douglas Anderson, Yunlong Jia, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-arm-msm SKU6 is LTE(w/o eSIM)+WIFI+Parade Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> --- Changes in v3: - Bindings and dts in the same series. Changes in v2: - Put sku6 before sku4. arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts index 764c451c1a85..767cb7450c0d 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ / { model = "Google Pazquel (Parade,LTE)"; - compatible = "google,pazquel-sku4", "qcom,sc7180"; + compatible = "google,pazquel-sku6", "google,pazquel-sku4", "qcom,sc7180"; }; &ap_sar_sensor_i2c { -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 3:58 [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Yunlong Jia @ 2022-07-21 3:58 ` Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 6:47 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 13:37 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-21 13:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Doug Anderson 2022-08-29 23:46 ` (subset) " Bjorn Andersson 2 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Yunlong Jia @ 2022-07-21 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LKML Cc: Henry Sun, Bob Moragues, Douglas Anderson, Yunlong Jia, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-arm-msm The difference between sku6 and sku4 is that there is no esim The different SKUs are: LTE with physical SIM _and_ eSIM LTE with only a physical SIM WiFi only Both sku4 and sku6 are LTE SKUs. One has the eSIM stuffed and one doesn't. There is a single shared device tree for the two. Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> --- Changes in v3: - Bindings and dts in the same series. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml index fb1d00bcc847..ff0ed8d4d232 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml @@ -450,6 +450,7 @@ properties: - description: Google Pazquel with LTE and Parade (newest rev) items: + - const: google,pazquel-sku6 - const: google,pazquel-sku4 - const: qcom,sc7180 -- 2.17.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 3:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Yunlong Jia @ 2022-07-21 6:47 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 13:37 ` Doug Anderson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-21 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yunlong Jia, LKML Cc: Henry Sun, Bob Moragues, Douglas Anderson, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Rob Herring, devicetree, linux-arm-msm On 21/07/2022 05:58, Yunlong Jia wrote: > The difference between sku6 and sku4 is that there is no esim > > The different SKUs are: > > LTE with physical SIM _and_ eSIM > LTE with only a physical SIM > WiFi only > Both sku4 and sku6 are LTE SKUs. > One has the eSIM stuffed and one doesn't. > There is a single shared device tree for the two. > > Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 3:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 6:47 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-21 13:37 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-21 16:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-21 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yunlong Jia Cc: 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 Hi, On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:59 PM Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> wrote: > > The difference between sku6 and sku4 is that there is no esim > > The different SKUs are: > > LTE with physical SIM _and_ eSIM > LTE with only a physical SIM > WiFi only > Both sku4 and sku6 are LTE SKUs. > One has the eSIM stuffed and one doesn't. > There is a single shared device tree for the two. > > Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> > --- > > Changes in v3: > - Bindings and dts in the same series. > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/qcom.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) 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> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 13:37 ` Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-21 16:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 16:43 ` Doug Anderson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-21 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson, Yunlong Jia Cc: 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 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. Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 16:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-21 16:43 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-21 16:52 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-21 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Krzysztof Kozlowski 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 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? 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. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 16:43 ` Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-21 16:52 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 18:29 ` Doug Anderson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-21 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 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 > 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. 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). Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 16:52 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-21 18:29 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 0:22 ` Rob Herring 2022-07-22 17:14 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-21 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Krzysztof Kozlowski 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 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. If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them separate. > 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. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 18:29 ` Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 0:22 ` Rob Herring 2022-07-22 15:41 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:14 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Rob Herring @ 2022-07-22 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski, Yunlong Jia, LKML, Henry Sun, Bob Moragues, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Krzysztof Kozlowski, open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS, linux-arm-msm On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:29:13AM -0700, 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. If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their > minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them > separate. Correct. > > 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. Bindings go first if applied together because you have to define the binding before you use it. But sometimes things go via multiple trees and that's fine because it's just easier. In that case, the subsystem tree is preferred for bindings (i.e. with the driver). But in this case, Bjorn is the subsystem tree. Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-22 0:22 ` Rob Herring @ 2022-07-22 15:41 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Herring Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski, Yunlong Jia, LKML, Henry Sun, Bob Moragues, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Krzysztof Kozlowski, open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS, linux-arm-msm Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:22 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:29:13AM -0700, 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. If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their > > minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them > > separate. > > Correct. > > > > > 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. > > Bindings go first if applied together because you have to define the > binding before you use it. But sometimes things go via multiple trees > and that's fine because it's just easier. In that case, the subsystem > tree is preferred for bindings (i.e. with the driver). But in this case, > Bjorn is the subsystem tree. Thanks! I'll interpret your response as: 1. Keep this as two patches and it's more important to keep dts and bindings separate than it is to avoid breaking bisectability of "make dtbs_check". 2. Bindings should have been patch #1, but it's not a massive deal. 3. I'll assume that Bjorn will yell if he'd like this series re-posted with the reverse order. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-22 15:41 ` Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 17:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-22 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Doug Anderson, Rob Herring Cc: Yunlong Jia, LKML, Henry Sun, Bob Moragues, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Konrad Dybcio, Krzysztof Kozlowski, open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS, linux-arm-msm On 22/07/2022 17:41, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:22 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:29:13AM -0700, 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. If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their >>> minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them >>> separate. >> >> Correct. >> >> >>>> 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. >> >> Bindings go first if applied together because you have to define the >> binding before you use it. But sometimes things go via multiple trees >> and that's fine because it's just easier. In that case, the subsystem >> tree is preferred for bindings (i.e. with the driver). But in this case, >> Bjorn is the subsystem tree. > > Thanks! I'll interpret your response as: > > 1. Keep this as two patches and it's more important to keep dts and > bindings separate than it is to avoid breaking bisectability of "make > dtbs_check". No one questioned this here... > > 2. Bindings should have been patch #1, but it's not a massive deal. This started our discussion and I said it should be a v4 with a proper order. It's not massive deal, but hopefully the submitter will learn something. > > 3. I'll assume that Bjorn will yell if he'd like this series re-posted > with the reverse order. Best regards, Krzysztof ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-21 18:29 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 0:22 ` Rob Herring @ 2022-07-22 17:14 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-22 17:23 ` Doug Anderson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-22 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-22 17:14 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-22 17:23 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:26 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Krzysztof Kozlowski 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 Hi, On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: > > 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. 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? 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. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel 2022-07-22 17:23 ` Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 17:26 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2022-07-22 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 On 22/07/2022 19:23, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> 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. > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade 2022-07-21 3:58 [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 3:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Yunlong Jia @ 2022-07-21 13:36 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:55 ` Doug Anderson 2022-08-29 23:46 ` (subset) " Bjorn Andersson 2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-21 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yunlong Jia Cc: 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 Hi, On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:59 PM Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> wrote: > > SKU6 is LTE(w/o eSIM)+WIFI+Parade > > Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> > --- > > Changes in v3: > - Bindings and dts in the same series. > > Changes in v2: > - Put sku6 before sku4. > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade 2022-07-21 13:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 17:55 ` Doug Anderson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2022-07-22 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yunlong Jia Cc: 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 Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:36 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 8:59 PM Yunlong Jia > <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> wrote: > > > > SKU6 is LTE(w/o eSIM)+WIFI+Parade > > > > Signed-off-by: Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@ecs.corp-partner.google.com> > > --- > > > > Changes in v3: > > - Bindings and dts in the same series. > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Put sku6 before sku4. > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade.dts | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> We're at a point now where this won't be able to land for at least 2.5 weeks. As an experiment, I created a staging tree atop the current arm64 dts tree and put this there. I'll try to put only things that I believe are truly ready to land there, but git hashes won't be stable since it's just a staging tree: https://github.com/dianders/kernel-staging/commits/qcom/arm64-staging I reversed the order of patch #1 and patch #2 when applying as per discussion in patch #2. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: (subset) [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade 2022-07-21 3:58 [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 3:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 13:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Doug Anderson @ 2022-08-29 23:46 ` Bjorn Andersson 2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Bjorn Andersson @ 2022-08-29 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LKML, yunlong.jia Cc: dianders, linux-arm-msm, robh+dt, konrad.dybcio, moragues, henrysun, devicetree, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt, agross On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 03:58:42 +0000, Yunlong Jia wrote: > SKU6 is LTE(w/o eSIM)+WIFI+Parade > > Applied, thanks! [1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade commit: 030a7bfb365fd19714e25e9547764bff690cb227 [2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel commit: 07603a1c17cf9eec5c963b470daba780cd7b9981 Best regards, -- Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-08-29 23:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-07-21 3:58 [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 3:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel Yunlong Jia 2022-07-21 6:47 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 13:37 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-21 16:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 16:43 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-21 16:52 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 18:29 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 0:22 ` Rob Herring 2022-07-22 15:41 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-22 17:14 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-22 17:23 ` Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:26 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski 2022-07-21 13:36 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add SKU6 for sc7180-trogdor-pazquel-lte-parade Doug Anderson 2022-07-22 17:55 ` Doug Anderson 2022-08-29 23:46 ` (subset) " Bjorn Andersson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).