Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pwm: mediatek,mt2712: add compatible for MT7988

[Uwe Kleine-König]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > 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

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature