Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Mediatek thermal sensor driver support for MT8186 and MT8188

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
Cc: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Mediatek thermal sensor driver support for MT8186 and MT8188
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 18:19:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <238nnn48-0o7r-22q2-2rpo-s3n7n62pn2q4@onlyvoer.pbz>

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!