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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 22/07/2022 17:41, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:22 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@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.
>>
>> 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