| Message ID | 20240213164633.25447-1-zajec5@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek,mt2712: add compatible for MT7988 | expand |
Hello Rafał, On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> please make sure that the email address used for sending the patch matches the Signed-off-by line. (It depends on the pickyness of the relevant maintainer if that is a stopper or not.) Assuming this patch will go in via a mediatek tree: Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Thanks Uwe
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? Also, what makes this incompatibly different with the other devices in the binding, like the 8183? Cheers, Conor. > > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml > index 0fbe8a6469eb..a5c308801619 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties: > - mediatek,mt7629-pwm > - mediatek,mt7981-pwm > - mediatek,mt7986-pwm > + - mediatek,mt7988-pwm > - mediatek,mt8183-pwm > - mediatek,mt8365-pwm > - mediatek,mt8516-pwm > -- > 2.35.3 >
On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > > I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal with all MediaTek DTS files. Is that wrong or unacceptable? > Also, what makes this incompatibly different with the other devices in > the binding, like the 8183? It can control 8 PWMs unlike any other SoC block except for MT2712. It uses different registers than MT2712 thought. > Cheers, > Conor. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >> index 0fbe8a6469eb..a5c308801619 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties: >> - mediatek,mt7629-pwm >> - mediatek,mt7981-pwm >> - mediatek,mt7986-pwm >> + - mediatek,mt7988-pwm >> - mediatek,mt8183-pwm >> - mediatek,mt8365-pwm >> - mediatek,mt8516-pwm >> -- >> 2.35.3 >>
On 13/02/2024 18:48, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Rafał, > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > please make sure that the email address used for sending the patch > matches the Signed-off-by line. > > (It depends on the pickyness of the relevant maintainer if that is a > stopper or not.) Does not have to... It must match From field which is correct here. Syntax like: From: Foo <foo@com> Signed-off-by: Foo <foo@com> Signed-off-by: Foo <my-other-email-foo@com> makes sense only if copyrights change (e.g. change of employers) and/or one email stop working. How would be the point of having to SoBs for the same person in other cases? Best regards, Krzysztof
Il 14/02/24 07:34, Rafał Miłecki ha scritto: > On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>> >>> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. >> >> I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? > > I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes > tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: > 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS > 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver > > I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal > with all MediaTek DTS files. > > Is that wrong or unacceptable? > It's not wrong but it's partially unacceptable, at least on my side. In my opinion (and I believe many do agree with me), sending the binding along with the driver is the right choice, and if you also want to include the dts that is also appreciated: series can go through multiple maintainers applying subsets - it's ok to do. I want to put emphasis on sending the binding with the driver, as this allows for a better review on everyone's side because we do see the full picture and we can give better advices: in this case, I'm not sure whether adding a new compatible for MT7988 in an enum is a good idea, as the compatible string may be shared with one of the *eleven* SoCs that are supported in the PWM driver, meaning that (hardware speaking!) the PWM controller in 7988 might be the same as the one in mt1234. Thanks for the great work that you're doing on the bindings btw. Keep it up! Angelo > >> Also, what makes this incompatibly different with the other devices in >> the binding, like the 8183? > > It can control 8 PWMs unlike any other SoC block except for MT2712. > It uses different registers than MT2712 thought. > > >> Cheers, >> Conor. >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >>> index 0fbe8a6469eb..a5c308801619 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml >>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties: >>> - mediatek,mt7629-pwm >>> - mediatek,mt7981-pwm >>> - mediatek,mt7986-pwm >>> + - mediatek,mt7988-pwm >>> - mediatek,mt8183-pwm >>> - mediatek,mt8365-pwm >>> - mediatek,mt8516-pwm >>> -- >>> 2.35.3 >>> >
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:27:54AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 14/02/24 07:34, Rafał Miłecki ha scritto: > > On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > > > > > > > MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > > > > > > I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? > > > > I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes > > tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: > > 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS > > 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver > > > > I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal > > with all MediaTek DTS files. > > > > Is that wrong or unacceptable? > > > > It's not wrong but it's partially unacceptable, at least on my side. > I want to put emphasis on sending the binding with the driver, as this allows > for a better review on everyone's side because we do see the full picture and > we can give better advices: in this case, I'm not sure whether adding a new > compatible for MT7988 in an enum is a good idea, as the compatible string may > be shared with one of the *eleven* SoCs that are supported in the PWM driver, > meaning that (hardware speaking!) the PWM controller in 7988 might be the same > as the one in mt1234. Re-ordering to make my reply make more sense... > In my opinion (and I believe many do agree with me), sending the binding along > with the driver is the right choice, and if you also want to include the dts > that is also appreciated: series can go through multiple maintainers applying > subsets - it's ok to do. Ye, either of those two makes my life a lot easier. I can then at least go and check the driver patch to see if things match up. In this case, I would want to check that the driver requires changes to support this device, given the commit message mentions nothing about the difference between this device and others. I'd still probably request that the commit message be improved to explain the lack of a fallback, but at least I would be clear about what I want and could provide a conditional Ack. If you're not sending the bindings patch with the driver, there's an extra onus on you to explain exactly what makes this device incompatible with the other devices in the enum, although in an ideal world it'd make no difference and every bindings patch would contain that information. > > > > > Also, what makes this incompatibly different with the other devices in > > > the binding, like the 8183? > > > > It can control 8 PWMs unlike any other SoC block except for MT2712. > > It uses different registers than MT2712 thought. Put this information in your commit message next time :) Cheers, Conor.
On 14.02.2024 11:06, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:27:54AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >> Il 14/02/24 07:34, Rafał Miłecki ha scritto: >>> On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>>>> >>>>> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. >>>> >>>> I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? >>> >>> I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes >>> tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: >>> 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS >>> 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver >>> >>> I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal >>> with all MediaTek DTS files. >>> >>> Is that wrong or unacceptable? >>> >> >> It's not wrong but it's partially unacceptable, at least on my side. > >> I want to put emphasis on sending the binding with the driver, as this allows >> for a better review on everyone's side because we do see the full picture and >> we can give better advices: in this case, I'm not sure whether adding a new >> compatible for MT7988 in an enum is a good idea, as the compatible string may >> be shared with one of the *eleven* SoCs that are supported in the PWM driver, >> meaning that (hardware speaking!) the PWM controller in 7988 might be the same >> as the one in mt1234. > > Re-ordering to make my reply make more sense... > >> In my opinion (and I believe many do agree with me), sending the binding along >> with the driver is the right choice, and if you also want to include the dts >> that is also appreciated: series can go through multiple maintainers applying >> subsets - it's ok to do. > > Ye, either of those two makes my life a lot easier. I can then at least > go and check the driver patch to see if things match up. In this case, I > would want to check that the driver requires changes to support this > device, given the commit message mentions nothing about the difference > between this device and others. I'd still probably request that the > commit message be improved to explain the lack of a fallback, but at > least I would be clear about what I want and could provide a conditional > Ack. > > If you're not sending the bindings patch with the driver, there's an > extra onus on you to explain exactly what makes this device incompatible > with the other devices in the enum, although in an ideal world it'd make > no difference and every bindings patch would contain that information. I understand, thanks guys for discussing this with me. I'll send V2 with Linux driver part. >>> >>>> Also, what makes this incompatibly different with the other devices in >>>> the binding, like the 8183? >>> >>> It can control 8 PWMs unlike any other SoC block except for MT2712. >>> It uses different registers than MT2712 thought. > > Put this information in your commit message next time :) > > Cheers, > Conor.
Hello, On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:27:54AM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 14/02/24 07:34, Rafał Miłecki ha scritto: > > On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > > > > > > > MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > > > > > > I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? > > > > I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes > > tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: > > 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS > > 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver > > > > I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal > > with all MediaTek DTS files. > > > > Is that wrong or unacceptable? > > > > It's not wrong but it's partially unacceptable, at least on my side. > > In my opinion (and I believe many do agree with me), sending the binding along > with the driver is the right choice, and if you also want to include the dts > that is also appreciated: series can go through multiple maintainers applying > subsets - it's ok to do. Just to put in my 2 ¢: My preference is to not avoid cross-trees patchsets and put all three patches in a single series. This combines the advantages of 1. and 2. Given this happens often enough this is something that the maintainers are used to handle just fine, so the cross-tree issue isn't problematic most of the time. The conflicts that sometimes arise with cross-tree patches aren't bad enough to out-weight having binding, driver and dts changes all together. Best regards Uwe
On 14/02/2024 07:34, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 13.02.2024 19:18, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>> >>> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. >> >> I see a binding and a dts patch, but no driver patch, how come? > > I believe that to avoid cross-trees patchsets (which are sometimes > tricky for maintainers) there are two ways of submiting such changes: > 1. dt-binding + driver; then (separately) DTS > 2. dt-binding + DTS; then (separately) driver > > I chose later in this case as my personal priority right now is to deal > with all MediaTek DTS files. > > Is that wrong or unacceptable? That was explained many, many times. For cases like driver+bindings+DTS, bindings go via driver subsystem, so they should be posted with driver patches. Feel free to include DTS at the end of series, unless you send to Greg or netdev. Better, also required for Greg and netdev, is to send DTS separately with lore links to the bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:05:47AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 13/02/2024 18:48, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Rafał, > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > >> > >> MT7988 has on-SoC controller that can control up to 8 PWMs. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > > > please make sure that the email address used for sending the patch > > matches the Signed-off-by line. > > > > (It depends on the pickyness of the relevant maintainer if that is a > > stopper or not.) > > Does not have to... It must match From field which is correct here. Rafał's Signed-off matches the author, but not the sender. Together with "the Signed-off-by: must always be that of the developer submitting the patch." (from Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst) I'd say it's reasonable to request that there is a sign-off with the email matching the sender. In my understanding the Sign-off line by the author isn't really required because the sender can vouch for the author. Of course this is a somewhat artificial discussion if the sender is the same person as the author and only the email addresses differ. So this about the strictness of the applying maintainer. FTR: $ curl -s https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/20240213164633.25447-1-zajec5@gmail.com/raw | grep -E '^(From|Signed-off-by):' From: =?UTF-8?q?Rafa=C5=82=20Mi=C5=82ecki?= <zajec5@gmail.com> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> the first From: is the sender, the second the author. Best regards Uwe
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml index 0fbe8a6469eb..a5c308801619 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwm/mediatek,mt2712-pwm.yaml @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ properties: - mediatek,mt7629-pwm - mediatek,mt7981-pwm - mediatek,mt7986-pwm + - mediatek,mt7988-pwm - mediatek,mt8183-pwm - mediatek,mt8365-pwm - mediatek,mt8516-pwm