Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: iommu: mediatek: Add phandles for mediatek infra/pericfg

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 18/05/22 13:29, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
> On 18/05/2022 12:04, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Add properties "mediatek,infracfg" and "mediatek,pericfg" to let the
> > mtk_iommu driver retrieve phandles to the infracfg and pericfg syscon(s)
> > instead of performing a per-soc compatible lookup.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml         | 8 ++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml 
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml
> > index 2ae3bbad7f1a..c4af41947593 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml
> > @@ -101,6 +101,10 @@ properties:
> >       items:
> >         - const: bclk
> > +  mediatek,infracfg:
> > +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
> > +    description: The phandle to the mediatek infracfg syscon
> > +
> >     mediatek,larbs:
> >       $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
> >       minItems: 1
> > @@ -112,6 +116,10 @@ properties:
> >         Refer to bindings/memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-larb.yaml. It must sort
> >         according to the local arbiter index, like larb0, larb1, larb2...
> > +  mediatek,pericfg:
> > +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
> > +    description: The phandle to the mediatek pericfg syscon
> > +
>
> I didn't explain myself. What I was suguesting was to squash the patch that add 
> requiered mediatek,infracfg with the patch that adds mediatk,infracfg to the 
> binding description. And then squash the both patches adding pericfg as well.

Sorry Matthias, I'm not sure ... I think I'm misunderstanding you again...
...but if I'm not, I don't think that squashing actual code and bindings together
is something acceptable?

I've made that kind of mistake in the past and I was told multiple times that
dt-bindings changes shall be sent separately from the actual driver changes.

Cheers,
Angelo