linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <efb2a776-d9c3-44bd-ab27-b66779dea85b@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 08:43:05 -0700
From: Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <andersson@...nel.org>, <konradybcio@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>,
        <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
        <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <sudeep.holla@....com>, <andi.shyti@...nel.org>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>,
        <joro@...tes.org>, <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, <lee@...nel.org>,
        <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <amitk@...nel.org>,
        <thara.gopinath@...il.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <cristian.marussi@....com>, <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        <lukasz.luba@....com>, <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_psodagud@...cinc.com>, Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p


On 9/5/2024 7:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/09/2024 16:15, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>> On 9/5/2024 7:09 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2024 16:03, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>>> On 9/5/2024 1:04 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 04/09/2024 23:06, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/2024 9:58 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry, didn't realize SPI uses different subject format than other
>>>>>>>> subsystems. Will fix in v3. Thanks
>>>>>>> Each subsystem is free to use its own form. e.g for netdev you will
>>>>>>> want the prefix [PATCH net-next v42] net: stmmac: dwmac-qcom-ethqos:
>>>>>> of course they are! No one is disputing that.
>>>>>>> This is another reason why you should be splitting these patches per
>>>>>>> subsystem, and submitting both the DT bindings and the code changes as
>>>>>>> a two patch patchset. You can then learn how each subsystem names its
>>>>>>> patches.
>>>>>> Qualcomm QUPs chips have serial engines that can be configured as
>>>>>> UART/I2C/SPI so QUPs changes require to be pushed in one series for all
>>>>>> 3 subsystems as they all are dependent.
>>>>> No, they are not dependent. They have never been. Look how all other
>>>>> upstreaming process worked in the past.
>>>> Top level QUP node(patch#18) includes i2c,spi,uart nodes.
>>>> soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml validate those subnodes against respective
>>>> yaml. The example that is added in YAML file for QUP node will not find
>>>> sa8255p compatibles if all 4 yaml(qup, i2c, spi, serial nodes) are not
>>>> included in the same series.
>>>>
>>> So where is the dependency? I don't see it. 
>> Ok, what is your suggestion on dt-schema check failure in that case as I
>> mentioned above? Shall we remove examples from yaml that we added?
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, if you insist,
>>> provide reasons why this should be the only one patchset - from all
>>> SoCs, all companies, all developers - getting an exception from standard
>>> merging practice and from explicit rule about driver change. See
>>> submitting bindings.
>>>
>>> This was re-iterated over and over, but you keep claiming you need some
>>> sort of special treatment. If so, please provide arguments WHY this
>>> requires special treatment and *all* other contributions are fine with it.
> You did not respond to above about explaining why this patchset needs
> special treatment, so I assume there is no exception here to be granted
> so any new version will follow standard process (see submitting bindings
> / writing bindings).
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Things will be clear after you see the driver changes. Without looking
at the code, this discussion won't lead to anything constructive. So I
deferred the QUP related discussion until driver patches are posted.

Thanks,

-Nikunj


>