[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb0ed593-082b-4edd-9a1e-78cccf796677@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 16:21:35 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: mediatek,mtk-wdt: add MT7988
watchdog and toprgu
On 10/11/2023 16:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> So adding the file to include/dt-bindings/reset/ should go into a
>>>> seperate patch? Because including it with the driver itself gave me
>>>> a checkpath warning telling me that dt-bindings should go seperate,
>>>> which is why I included it with the binding docs.
>>>
>>> No, I said the hunk should be dropped. Removed.
>>
>> I guess we are somehow misunderstanding each other.
>> Lets go with an example. I can put the header into a commit of its own,
>> just like commit
>> 5794dda109fc8 dt-bindings: reset: mt7986: Add reset-controller header file
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220105100456.7126-2-sam.shih@mediatek.com
>>
>> Would that be acceptable? And if not, why?
>
> ...this question.
>
> Again, whether this is separate patch - it is still hunk which I think
> should be removed. I gave the reason "why" in this mail thread and in
> multiple other discussions.
I gave you clear reasoning 7 hours ago:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/59629ec1-cc0c-4c5a-87cc-ea30d64ec191@linaro.org/
to which you did not respond.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists