Message-ID: <eef0aa5a-a9bb-43e4-9066-febf48fce46d@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:36:45 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Ninad Palsule <ninad@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, joel@....id.au, andrew@...econstruct.com.au,
 peterhuewe@....de, jarkko@...nel.org, jgg@...pe.ca, keescook@...omium.org,
 tony.luck@...el.com, gpiccoli@...lia.com, johannes.holland@...ineon.com,
 broonie@...nel.org, patrick.rudolph@...ements.com, vincent@...emblay.dev,
 peteryin.openbmc@...il.com, lakshmiy@...ibm.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 naresh.solanki@...ements.com, alexander.stein@...tq-group.com,
 festevam@...x.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, geissonator@...oo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/8] tpm: tis-i2c: Add more compatible strings

On 10/01/2024 21:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have send it as a separate commit. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20231214144954.3833998-1-ninad@linux.ibm.com/
>>>>>>>>> Why did you do that? It now just adds undocumented compatibles to the
>>>>>>>>> driver. Please, as Rob requested, work with Lukas on his series to make
>>>>>>>>> sure that these devices are documented.
>>>>>>>> I think krzysztof kozlowski suggested to send these patches separately:
>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1c5ace65-2fd8-4503-b22f-e0f564d1c83f@linaro.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did I misunderstood it? Do you guys want me to include that commit again?
>>>>>>> My comment was in DTS thread under specific DTS patch. How did you
>>>>>>> figure out it applies to driver and bindings? This does not make sense.
>>>>>> Sorry for the misunderstanding. Where do you want me to add driver
>>>>>> patch? Before all DTS patches or after all DTS patches?
>>>>> Does not matter, why do you insist on combining them with DTS? Drivers
>>>>> and bindings are going together. DTS better separate, although depending
>>>>> on the case can be together.
>>>>>
>>>> I have combined DTS and Driver because DTS was using compatibility
>>>> string which is not upstream yet hence I thought it is logical to send
>>>> it under same patchset.
>>>
>>> Sometimes yes, sometimes not. DTS must not go via driver subsystem, so
>>> sending it in the same patchset has implications on maintainers applying
>>> it. Some like it, some don't and you will be nagged for combining them.
>>>
>>
>> "DTS must not go via driver subsystem"
>>
>> I always thought the guideline was to submit separate _patches_ for dts
>> and driver changes, but as part of a single series. I didn't know that
>> there is a rule to submit separate patch _series_. I also didn't know
>> (and as far as I know no one called me on it) that I am not supposed
>> to _apply_ dts changes. So far, I typically applied dts changes together
>> with driver patches after receiving an Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
>> from a devicetree maintainer.
> 
> I did not notice you applying them, but such guideline - DTS must go via
> respective SoC tree - was always repeated by me and SoC maintainers.
> Just like gazillion other things probably was not documented... or even
> if it was documented, it would be so deep among hundreds of other rules
> nobody would find it. :)
> 
>>
>> This exchange suggests that I did it all wrong. Should I reject devicetree
>> patches submitted as part of a driver patch series going forward ?
> 
> I propose: just ignore them. The SoC maintainer will pick them up.
> 
>> Should I not apply dts patches submitted as part of a patch series ?
> 
> No, please do not apply them.

Eh, English can be confusing. Let's make it easier to grasp:
"Please do not apply DTS patches to a driver subsystem."

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists