Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: usb: dwc3: Clean up hs_phy_irq in binding

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

On 26/12/2023 11:03, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
>>>>>      - if:
>>>>> @@ -460,11 +422,13 @@ allOf:
>>>>>            compatible:
>>>>>              contains:
>>>>>                enum:
>>>>> +              - qcom,ipq5332-dwc3
>>>>>                  - qcom,sc8280xp-dwc3
>>>>>                  - qcom,x1e80100-dwc3
>>>>>        then:
>>>>>          properties:
>>>>>            interrupts:
>>>>> +          minItems: 3
>>>>
>>>> Hm, why? This commit is unmanageable. Your commit msg is already huge
>>>> but still does not explain this. Are you sure you are fixing only one
>>>> logical thing per patch? Does not look like.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is reordering the targets based on interrupts they have. I put it
>>> in one commit because splitting this into multiple patches breaks one
>>> thing or other. Also once I am defining permutations, I have to group
>>> targets into these combinations in the same patch. I know this is a big
>>> commit but it solves the interrupt cleanup and defines a way for future
>>> targets.
>>
>>
>> This does not answer why, you sc8280xp and x1e80100 not get one optional
>> interrupt. I asked "why" you are doing this change. Why do you need it?
>> What is the rationale?
>>
>> Then I grunted about unmanageable commit, because all my troubles to
>> review it are the effect of it: it is very difficult to read. It is also
>> difficult for you, because you keep making here mistakes. So if you
>> cannot write this commit properly and I cannot review it, then it is way
>> over-complicated, don't you think? But this is still second problem
>> here, don't ignore the fist - "why?"
> 
> HI Krzysztof,
> 
>   Thanks for the review.
>   To answer the question,
> 
> "why ?" : The interrupts have been mis-interpreted on many platforms or 
> many interrupts are missing.

I asked about these two specific platforms. Please explain these
changes. Above is so generic that tells me nothing.

> 
> Now, if I am adding the missing interrupts, I need to segregate targets 
> also into respective buckets in the same patch and that is what making 
> this patch a little complicated. Is it possible / acceptable to split 
> this into two patches if this is the case. Can you help with suggestions 
> from your end ? Or may be I am understanding your question wrong ? 😅

Split the patch into manageable chunks.

Best regards,
Krzysztof