Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Add compatible qcom,oryon-1-5

Shawn Guo
2026-04-14T08:01:09Z

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 09:11:38AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/04/2026 08:59, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 08:23:12AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 14/04/2026 03:21, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 13/04/2026 16:34, Shawn Guo wrote:
> >>>>> In short, there will be Nord DTS using the binding coming, and I do not
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe there will, maybe there will not.
> >>>>
> >>>>> think posting them at the same time should be a requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, it is a requirement as I explained previously, said that
> >>>> *multiple* times on the mailing list, documented expectations in
> >>>> mentioned/linked email threads.
> >>>
> >>> To be honest, I can only read the following from mentioned email
> >>> threads.
> >>>
> >>> - Binding and DTS should be organized in separate series per subsystem
> >>> - DTS should reference binding series by a lore link
> >>>
> >>
> >> The links told explicitly to organize series per subsystem/maintainer.
> >> Who is the subsystem here?
> >
> > Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> appears at the top of get_maintainer.pl
> > output, so I guess it's DT/Rob?
>
> If you guess, then why did you post it separately from the other patches
> targeting Rob?

I should have done that.

> But you mentioned oryon-2-3 compatible. Who applied it? Rob? Who applied
> Kryo? Or Samsung Mongoose?

I was misled by commit 96e71f817b02 ("dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Extend
Qualcomm Oryon compatibles"), which should also been applied by DT/Rob,
IMO. The merge conflict where oryon-1-4 got lost could have been avoided
if the commit above went through DT tree, since your commit 0220405d7e09
("dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Deprecate Qualcomm generic compatibles") already
went to DT.

> I explained you the rule - bindings go with the subsystem and you post
> everything targeting subsystem in one patchset. This was explicitly
> asked for in my referenced postings.

Being a platform maintainer for 1.5 decades, I knew this pretty well.

> The SoC is the primary subsystem here.

The same binding switching its belonging subsystem is a new thing to me.

Shawn