[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b72b8a7-be18-8014-f1b6-46cbef1e3d6f@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:42:40 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
magnus.damm@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
biju.das.jz@...renesas.com, quic_bjorande@...cinc.com,
arnd@...db.de, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org,
nfraprado@...labora.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/37] dt-bindings: clock: add r9a08g045 CPG clocks and
resets definitions
On 15/09/2023 09:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:24 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2023 17:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:03 PM Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 07:51:41AM +0300, Claudiu wrote:
>>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add RZ/G3S (R9A08G045) Clock Pulse Generator (CPG) core clocks, module
>>>>> clocks and resets.
>>>>
>>>> This is part of the binding, so it can be squashed with the previous
>>>> patch. The ack there still stands.
>>>
>>> Usually we keep it as a separate patch, to be queued in an immutable
>>> branch, as it is included by both the clock driver and by DTS, but
>>> not by the yaml bindings file.
>>
>> Binding also should be shared, so you get compatible documented in both
>> places (thus lack of checkpatch warnings). It still should be one patch.
>
> Hmm, I see your point...
>
> For core Renesas SoCs components where I am (sub)maintainer for both
> the driver subsystem and the DTS, I can take care of that.
> For the generic case, that will need a lot of cooperation with subsystem
> maintainers, to create lots of small immutable branches with DT bindings
> and DT binding definition updates.
Wait, I think I was too vague.
"Binding also should be shared..."
s/should/can/
I did not want to say that every time bindings should be shared, but
rather that if already sharing the headers, you can share the bindings
and you will get benefits - happy checkpatch in both places.
>
> Alternatively, are you (the DT maintainers) prepared to handle all
> DT bindings and DT binding definition updates, and create immutable
> branches for all of them (in a timely manner, of course)?
> Then we can start enforcing the rule that driver and DTS updates must
> not cause checkpatch warnings for missing compatible values, and must
> not be applied without merging the corresponding immutable branch first.
I don't think we are ready for any of this, but it is just my incorrect
English or too fast typing before :)
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists