Re: [PATCH 07/15] mailbox: mediatek: Add loop pkt flag and irq handling for loop command

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 26/09/2023 05:20, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote:
mdq_pkt_finialize_loop() at [PATCH 8/15].
>>>
>>> mtk-cmdq-helper.c and mtk-cmdq-mailbox.c are not in the
>>> same maintainer's tree, so I separate this to another patch from
>> [PATCH
>>> 8/15].
>>
>> Why? Anyway it has to go through same tree. You have dependencies.
>> Such
>> artificial split makes it only difficult to review and understand.
>> Re-organize your patchset to be correctly split per each logical
>> feature/change. Split per subsystems is not the same.
>>
> 
> Yes, these related files are in the different maintainer's tree.
> Refer to https://www.kernel.org/doc/linux/MAINTAINERS
> 
> MAILBOX API
> M: Jassi Brar
> F: drivers/mailbox/
> - drivers/mailbox/mtk-cmdq-mailbox.c
> - drivers/mailbox/mtk-cmdq-sec-
> mailbox.c
> 
> ARM/Mediatek SoC support
> M: Matthias Brugger
> F: drivers/soc/mediatek/
> K: mediatek
> - drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-cmdq-helper.c
> -
> include/linux/soc/mediatek/mtk-cmdq.h
> 
> I think we should add a new MAINTAINER label for mediatek CMDQ mailbox
> and put these files together, such as "MAILBOX ARM MHUv2" and "QUALCOM
> IPCC MAILBOX DRIVER".

Why? It's not related to the topic of splitting patchset into patches.
There is no problem of patchsets touching multiple subsystems. We
already solved this problem many years ago...


> But I don't know how to make a request for that.

Anyway, you would not be a maintainer taking patches, just a reviewer
called "M:" here...

> 
> Anyway, I'll squash this logical feature to the same patch, no matter
> these files are not in the same tree.
> 
Best regards,
Krzysztof