From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB2A2C83F03 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 13:09:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:CC:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=pNWWIsSNBqWSDFwC788sm/1scnECAj5LtVHbhR14TSw=; b=t0e2ixgnfmT1lV TXHOU7F3SDu+f3yS/wGbwEyDYmiCbbYtInfqvMjoYSnH3I9n8Jmst9Ptr5OtCV1GNOxHtUOwVnEGa v8/NhdyeA8xLQ4lOkaDQnTDQ5VEFIvTC8cjnTnI0qPEOkB9Dx9s5bMgTMq+tIw0ahprF0VA+Kkyde +nHUpvip5BIiJGVtqByCxXXAchi224s5U0KbxxPUbx3xGxL1psuYTuq4pG/xHEduCYQjjSS/P+q8b H6Pi09m8JKO/NsMPWrAhOk/gweKa3QvcY1AQ02wDGdMdz+KCSRNpt6s4F6X86Ck1p8whoC0EPiztF w8nL/o5mOVXqY8jhW3Og==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uXg9w-0000000ETOP-1Jv4; Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:08:56 +0000 Received: from 60-248-80-70.hinet-ip.hinet.net ([60.248.80.70] helo=Atcsqr.andestech.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1uXg8h-0000000ETDA-3CeK for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:07:41 +0000 Received: from mail.andestech.com (ATCPCS34.andestech.com [10.0.1.134]) by Atcsqr.andestech.com with ESMTPS id 564D75Qd002650 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from ben717@andestech.com) Received: from atctrx.andestech.com (10.0.15.173) by ATCPCS34.andestech.com (10.0.1.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800 From: Ben Zong-You Xie To: Krzysztof Kozlowski CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] add Voyager board support Message-ID: References: <20250704081451.2011407-1-ben717@andestech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.4 (2021-12-11) X-Originating-IP: [10.0.15.173] X-ClientProxiedBy: ATCPCS33.andestech.com (10.0.1.100) To ATCPCS34.andestech.com (10.0.1.134) X-DKIM-Results: atcpcs34.andestech.com; dkim=none; X-DNSRBL: X-MAIL: Atcsqr.andestech.com 564D75Qd002650 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250704_060740_305447_E2C7F092 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.94 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Also, there is a patch dependency in this patchset: > > Patch 2 <- Patch 4 <- Patch 5 <- Patch 6 > > How? These are bindings. How DTS can depend on the binding? Do you have > akcs from their subsystem maintainers that you are sending it here? > > Sorry, but no, this should go via their maintainers, unless they did not > want to pick it up. Is this the case here? The dependency chain arises because each of these patches introduces a new file, requiring a corresponding update to the MAINTAINERS file. In v4 [1], Rob and Daniel attempted to merge Patch 4 and Patch 5, respectively, but encountered conflicts in the MAINTAINERS file. That's why I specified the patch dependencies in v5 and this patchset. Now, I understand that binding patches are typically handled by subsystem maintainers. To prevent the conflicts again, I think I should gather all MAINTAINERS file changes into a single patch. Is that right? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250514095350.3765716-1-ben717@andestech.com/ Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from Atcsqr.andestech.com (60-248-80-70.hinet-ip.hinet.net [60.248.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04CEC2D8DA6 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 13:07:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=60.248.80.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751634467; cv=none; b=qD+SblaVxoxXEITitTtkzs7/8H3/atXL0FU74FuAcujXwiQ26CiQtcLIabdm1u10u4OmH7u/oz8lHEMqJPqj8tQ6pdVEVXLJkmUslKtwi0qNieaF6krQZZ8ez7fdF2FN1jqxfh25BmbIPD3rPqI9yl3UNR2mI2GWiIdCB3ACdN4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751634467; c=relaxed/simple; bh=extDsVbb9anmJOT/i+066iso1LSucl2pzA4ay2dJ1j0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RhUyBeYCleeNbccXt1kpSR+WDQS56wqAtbIuc6m2bBYh6/bDQMsuurr3GOXDgV0k7y+2LvyKbrrZvPwkHkJ3x+QGxDrRz1XYiS555frq+qUCiHB30P2yjas/pohI3iXAQKj73EDpOwSpFovdNG1VHRw4i+3hAVpAinmghC012vY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=andestech.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=andestech.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=60.248.80.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=andestech.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=andestech.com Received: from mail.andestech.com (ATCPCS34.andestech.com [10.0.1.134]) by Atcsqr.andestech.com with ESMTPS id 564D75Qd002650 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from ben717@andestech.com) Received: from atctrx.andestech.com (10.0.15.173) by ATCPCS34.andestech.com (10.0.1.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800 From: Ben Zong-You Xie To: Krzysztof Kozlowski CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] add Voyager board support Message-ID: References: <20250704081451.2011407-1-ben717@andestech.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: soc@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.4 (2021-12-11) X-ClientProxiedBy: ATCPCS33.andestech.com (10.0.1.100) To ATCPCS34.andestech.com (10.0.1.134) X-DKIM-Results: atcpcs34.andestech.com; dkim=none; X-DNSRBL: X-SPAM-SOURCE-CHECK: pass X-MAIL:Atcsqr.andestech.com 564D75Qd002650 On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Also, there is a patch dependency in this patchset: > > Patch 2 <- Patch 4 <- Patch 5 <- Patch 6 > > How? These are bindings. How DTS can depend on the binding? Do you have > akcs from their subsystem maintainers that you are sending it here? > > Sorry, but no, this should go via their maintainers, unless they did not > want to pick it up. Is this the case here? The dependency chain arises because each of these patches introduces a new file, requiring a corresponding update to the MAINTAINERS file. In v4 [1], Rob and Daniel attempted to merge Patch 4 and Patch 5, respectively, but encountered conflicts in the MAINTAINERS file. That's why I specified the patch dependencies in v5 and this patchset. Now, I understand that binding patches are typically handled by subsystem maintainers. To prevent the conflicts again, I think I should gather all MAINTAINERS file changes into a single patch. Is that right? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250514095350.3765716-1-ben717@andestech.com/ Thanks, Ben