Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: gpio: gpio-xilinx: Mark clocks as required property

[Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com>]

On 6/16/25 09:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/06/2025 09:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 16/06/2025 08:51, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 6/16/25 08:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 13/06/2025 13:26, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>>> Based on discussion at
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241002-revivable-crummy-f780adec538c@spud/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually this shouldn't be only targetting GPIO but also for example
>>>>>>> xlnx,xps-timebase-wdt-1.00.a but I would like to check it first on gpio
>>>>>>> before starting to check other bindings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIUC, patch #1 is a prerequisite, so you need to squash them. Otherwise
>>>>>> dt_binding_check is not bisectable and we want it to be bisectable.
>>>>>
>>>>> No issue with squash if necessary. I sent it as series to be applied together
>>>>> which won't break bisectability of tree and no new error is going to be reported.
>>>>
>>>> You did not say anything about dependencies and merging strategy, to
>>>> this would go via different trees. Sending something in one patchset
>>>> does not mean that there is a dependency.
>>>
>>> No offense but I don't think I can agree with this. The main purpose of patchset
>>> is to show sequence how things should go one after each other and series should
>>> go via single tree.
>>
>> Go through all patchsets on DT list touching different subsystems. You
>> will find only 1% of patchsets having above expectation implied (when
>> not explicitly stated).
>>
>> Really. 99% of patchsets on DT list targeting different subsytems, have
>> opposite, so implied rule they go INDEPENDENTLY to separate subsystems.
>>
>> And above (so implied rule of splitting things) is even documented in DT
>> submitting patches.
>>
> One more thought: That was from submitter point of view. But from
> maintainers point of view, EVERY MONTH there is around one patchset on
> DT list which has implied merging like you described (but not explicitly
> stated) and MAINTAINERS pick them up independently causing breaks, so
> some or many MAINTAINERS also have such reasoning as I said.
> 
> They will pick up individual bits from patchset unless told otherwise.

What do you want me to do?

Thanks,
Michal