Message-ID: <fa54c691-467f-4b9e-b483-023dfeb8d32b@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:10:52 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>,
 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Farouk Bouabid <farouk.bouabid@...rry.de>
Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
 Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
 linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] hwmon: (amc6821) add support for tsd,mule

On 12/08/2024 13:58, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 8/12/24 1:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from krzk@...nel.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> On 31/07/2024 17:12, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Farouk Bouabid wrote:
>>>> Theobroma Systems Mule is an MCU that emulates a set of I2C devices,
>>>> among which is an amc6821 and other devices that are reachable through
>>>> an I2C-mux.
>>>>
>>>> The devices on the mux can be selected by writing the appropriate device
>>>> number to an I2C config register (amc6821: reg 0xff)
>>>>
>>>> Implement "tsd,mule" compatible to instantiate the I2C-mux platform device
>>>> when probing the amc6821.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Farouk Bouabid <farouk.bouabid@...rry.de>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>>>
>>> Applied.
>>
>> Eh, there is undocumented dependency on I2C here. Next has warning
>> because of this.
>>
> 
> I think you meant to comment this on 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/20240725-dev-mule-i2c-mux-v6-0-f9f6d7b60fb2@cherry.de/T/#mdb7976f1dc16fce0b7db9abee6fd0b1fd0a2e2ba 
> (patch 3 and not 4 of the series). This patch (4) is fine on its own I 
> believe, no dependency on anything else. (well, except if we expect 
> bindings to be absolutely merged before the drivers? I think what 
> matters is the Device Tree changes making use of the new binding be 
> merged after dt-binding changes?).

Yeah, this was about DT binding.

> 
> I agree that there's a somewhat non-obvious dependency between patch 1 
> and 3 (the dt-bindings) and 5-8 with everything before, we could have 
> made this more explicit.
> 
>> Farouk, please *always mention* the dependencies between patches.
>>
> 
> I wasn't aware of that rule, my apologies for not catching this before 
> upstream submission.
> 
> For anyone wondering the rule is made explicit here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#separate-your-changes
> 
> "If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be 
> complete, that is OK. Simply note “this patch depends on patch X” in 
> your patch description."
> 
> Question about b4 workflow though. I encourage using b4 to avoid as many 
> mistakes as possible and make the workflow as painless as possible. I 
> believe b4 doesn't allow you to have per-patch notes, only in the 
> cover-letter.

"Patch description" or "per patch notes" is whatever you write in
changelog, so under ---.


> a) is this dependency list in cover-letter acceptable, or
> b) need to add it to the patch note (below the ---), or

One of above should be enough, both are more welcomed because many
maintainers ignore completely cover letters.

> c) can add it to the patch commit log

No, if patches go through separate trees then it would be just confusing
and not helping at all.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists