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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XKC_fbBzna8TgiPRmPH_=AQ3ckv2EEjoNvayKQ83Uciw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 11:29:13 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@....corp-partner.google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Henry Sun <henrysun@...gle.com>,
        Bob Moragues <moragues@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6
 for sc7180 pazquel

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.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@...aro.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@...omium.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