Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel

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

On 22/07/2022 19:23, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/07/2022 20:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/07/2022 15:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not worth sending a new version for, but normally I expect the
>>>>>>> bindings to be patch #1 and the dts change to be patch #2. In any
>>>>>>> case:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say worth v4, because otherwise patches is not bisectable.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying because `dtbs_check` will fail between the two?
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>
>>> OK. Then I assume you agree that reversing the order of the patches
>>> won't help, only combining the two patches into one.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> How does
>>>>> flipping the order help? If `dtbs_check` needs to be bisectable then
>>>>> these two need to be one patch, but I was always under the impression
>>>>> that we wanted bindings patches separate from dts patches.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must be separate from
>>>> DTS. The only restriction is DTS cannot go with drivers.
>>>
>>> I have always heard that best practice is to have bindings in a patch
>>> by themselves.
>>
>> Yes, bindings must be separate patch, no one here objects this. You said
>> they cannot go together via one maintainer tree or I misunderstood?
>>
>>> If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their
>>> minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them
>>> separate.
>>
>> Nothing changed. Bindings must be separate. They will be applied by
>> maintainer and, if correctly ordered, this is bisectable.
> 
> OK, I think this is the disconnect here.
> 
> No matter what order Jimmy's patches land in, it won't be bisectable
> from the standpoint of "make dtbs_check". This is what I've been
> trying to say.
> 
> * If the bindings land first then the device tree won't have sku6 and
> will fail "make dtbs_check"
> 
> * If the dts lands first then the bindings won't have sku6 and will
> fail "make dtbs_check".
> 
> Am I missing something?

Ah, you're right... The patch changes the bindings of a board instead of
bringing a new variant. Yeah, this cannot be bisectable if kept
separate, thus order does no matter.

> 
> So when you said "I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must
> be separate from DTS" and that you cared about "make dtbs_check" being
> bisectable that you were saying you wanted these squashed into one
> patch. I guess that's not the case.
>

Best regards,
Krzysztof