Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] dt-bindings: iommu: mediatek: Add phandles for mediatek infra/pericfg

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>]

Il 18/05/22 13:29, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
> 
> 
> On 18/05/2022 12:04, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Add properties "mediatek,infracfg" and "mediatek,pericfg" to let the
>> mtk_iommu driver retrieve phandles to the infracfg and pericfg syscon(s)
>> instead of performing a per-soc compatible lookup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>> ---
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml         | 8 ++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml 
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml
>> index 2ae3bbad7f1a..c4af41947593 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iommu/mediatek,iommu.yaml
>> @@ -101,6 +101,10 @@ properties:
>>       items:
>>         - const: bclk
>> +  mediatek,infracfg:
>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>> +    description: The phandle to the mediatek infracfg syscon
>> +
>>     mediatek,larbs:
>>       $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
>>       minItems: 1
>> @@ -112,6 +116,10 @@ properties:
>>         Refer to bindings/memory-controllers/mediatek,smi-larb.yaml. It must sort
>>         according to the local arbiter index, like larb0, larb1, larb2...
>> +  mediatek,pericfg:
>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>> +    description: The phandle to the mediatek pericfg syscon
>> +
> 
> I didn't explain myself. What I was suguesting was to squash the patch that add 
> requiered mediatek,infracfg with the patch that adds mediatk,infracfg to the 
> binding description. And then squash the both patches adding pericfg as well.

Sorry Matthias, I'm not sure ... I think I'm misunderstanding you again...
...but if I'm not, I don't think that squashing actual code and bindings together
is something acceptable?

I've made that kind of mistake in the past and I was told multiple times that
dt-bindings changes shall be sent separately from the actual driver changes.

Cheers,
Angelo



_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu