[PATCH v1 7/8] tpm: tis-i2c: Add more compatible strings

[Guenter Roeck]

On 1/10/24 12:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/01/2024 20:06, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 1/10/24 09:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2024 16:54, Ninad Palsule wrote:
>>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/10/24 09:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 10/01/2024 15:31, Ninad Palsule wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have send it as a separate commit. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20231214144954.3833998-1-ninad@linux.ibm.com/
>>>>>>>>> Why did you do that? It now just adds undocumented compatibles to the
>>>>>>>>> driver. Please, as Rob requested, work with Lukas on his series to make
>>>>>>>>> sure that these devices are documented.
>>>>>>>> I think krzysztof kozlowski suggested to send these patches separately:
>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1c5ace65-2fd8-4503-b22f-e0f564d1c83f@linaro.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did I misunderstood it? Do you guys want me to include that commit again?
>>>>>>> My comment was in DTS thread under specific DTS patch. How did you
>>>>>>> figure out it applies to driver and bindings? This does not make sense.
>>>>>> Sorry for the misunderstanding. Where do you want me to add driver
>>>>>> patch? Before all DTS patches or after all DTS patches?
>>>>> Does not matter, why do you insist on combining them with DTS? Drivers
>>>>> and bindings are going together. DTS better separate, although depending
>>>>> on the case can be together.
>>>>>
>>>> I have combined DTS and Driver because DTS was using compatibility
>>>> string which is not upstream yet hence I thought it is logical to send
>>>> it under same patchset.
>>>
>>> Sometimes yes, sometimes not. DTS must not go via driver subsystem, so
>>> sending it in the same patchset has implications on maintainers applying
>>> it. Some like it, some don't and you will be nagged for combining them.
>>>
>>
>> "DTS must not go via driver subsystem"
>>
>> I always thought the guideline was to submit separate _patches_ for dts
>> and driver changes, but as part of a single series. I didn't know that
>> there is a rule to submit separate patch _series_. I also didn't know
>> (and as far as I know no one called me on it) that I am not supposed
>> to _apply_ dts changes. So far, I typically applied dts changes together
>> with driver patches after receiving an Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
>> from a devicetree maintainer.
> 
> I did not notice you applying them, but such guideline - DTS must go via
> respective SoC tree - was always repeated by me and SoC maintainers.
> Just like gazillion other things probably was not documented... or even
> if it was documented, it would be so deep among hundreds of other rules
> nobody would find it. :)
> 
>>
>> This exchange suggests that I did it all wrong. Should I reject devicetree
>> patches submitted as part of a driver patch series going forward ?
> 
> I propose: just ignore them. The SoC maintainer will pick them up.
> 
>> Should I not apply dts patches submitted as part of a patch series ?
> 
> No, please do not apply them.
> 
>> If so, it would help to have some documentation I can point to to explain
>> the rationale to submitters (and myself). Also, in that case, how is the
> 
> Yes, it would. I can try to create something.
> 
>> synchronization between device tree patches and driver patches supposed
>> to happen ?
> 
> There should not be synchronization. Just to remind: we talk about DTS
> (so also DTSI and DTSO), thus everything being in arch/*/boot/dts/. We
> do not talk about DT bindings, right? The bindings are obvious (and
> documented): preferably go via driver subsystem, with fallback/special
> cases via SoC tree and fallback to Rob.
> 

Sorry, misunderstanding on my side. I do not and never did apply patches
in arch/*/boot/dts/. I referred to patches in Documentation/devicetree/

Sorry, I though you also referred to bindings. My bad.

Guenter