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

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> 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