Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] dt-bindings: clock: drop NUM_CLOCKS define for EN7581

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

On 01/04/2025 16:44, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/03/2025 15:50, Christian Marangi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/2025 19:59, Christian Marangi wrote:
>>>>> Drop NUM_CLOCKS define for EN7581 dts/upstream/src/include. This is not a binding and
>>>>> should not be placed here. Value is derived internally in the user
>>>>> driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>> Please drop my Ack. I have never acked such patch for uboot. If I did,
>>>> it was by mistake - probably you CC-ed me for some reason.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some explaination, uboot introduced the concept of upstream where they
>>> "import" linux patch for dts and dt-bindings.
>>
>> I expected OF_UPSTREAM to be taking the sources, not patches.
>>
>>>
>>> This and the other patch are the exact upstream patch with only the path
>>> changed so I keep all the patch commit message with tags and added the
>>>
>>> [ upstream commit ] thing.
>>>
>>> Hope Tom can better suggest how this should be done. You were CC
>>> probably because the git send-email included you as present in the
>>> different tags.
>>
>> Well, Ack is still not valid because I did not Ack exactly that change.
>> It does not matter for the ack, but for Reviewed-by it would matter,
>> because it is a statement (of oversight...). I cannot control what you
>> put into patches taken out of kernel, but at least do not Cc me on that.
> 
> In specifics, yes, we should update doc/develop/devicetree/control.rst
> and maybe doc/develop/sending_patches.rst to use --suppress-cc=all for
> dts/upstream.
> 
> But in general, what do you expect people to be doing with content from
> devicetree-rebasing? We're doing some direct cherry-picks in between
> merging of the tags. I think it would be weird to be dropping the tags
> and un-attributing peoples work.


I rather expected something like how kernel is importing dtc. You just
list the commits you get. If you want the full git history, then I would
expect simple git submodule. In both cases there will be no such patches
on the lists.

For the Ack it does not matter, but I would feel uncomfortable if people
were sending stripped and modified patches with my Rb tag.

Best regards,
Krzysztof