[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 18:19:50 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com>
Cc: Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Mediatek thermal sensor driver support for MT8186
and MT8188
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:04:38PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024, Julien Panis wrote:
>
> > [RFC] When PATCH 1/6 and 2/6 are squashed, checkpatch raises this WARNING:
> > "DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch." That's why I
> > split them in this v5. The problem is that the driver can't be compiled
> > any more at PATCH 1/6. It needs PATCH 2/6 to be compiled. Should the
> > checkpatch warning be ignored here ? Should I finally squash PATCH 1/6
> > and PATCH 2/6 ?
>
> IMHO it might be preferable to preserve successful compilation across
> bisection than to appeal to checkpatch in this case.
Or, patch 1 adds the new definitions, subsequent patches convert the
users, and the last patch removes the old, now unused, definitions.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists