Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] memory: bt1-l2-ctl: Remove not-going-to-be-supported code for Baikal SoC

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 09:02:34AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/02/2026 16:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 05:24:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 04:18:36PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 24/02/2026 16:05, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>>> As noticed in the discussion [1] the Baikal SoC and platforms
> >>>> are not going to be finalized, hence remove stale code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/22b92ddf-6321-41b5-8073-f9c7064d3432@infradead.org/ [1]
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> v2: dropped DT bindings change (Krzysztof)
> >>>
> >>> I think we misunderstood each other. I was speaking about that feedback:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20260223185754.GA151596-robh@kernel.org/
> >>>
> >>> so bindings are separate patches.
> >>>
> >>> Was there any other feedback?
> >>
> >> Now you are totally confused me.
> >> I did what you asked, I split bindings removal to a separate patch. The code is
> >> also removed in this patch. What do you want?
> > 
> > Bindings removal _separate_ patch:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260224152711.3615622-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com
> 
> Separate patch in these patch series! The ABI documentation ALWAYS goes
> with the implementation. Every patch on LKML follows that rule and also
> it is explicitly documented in DT submitting patches.

I see, it seems too hard to do this right from the start.
Thanks for elaboration!

I will address this concern in v3.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko