Re: [v3,7/9] dt-bindings: arm64: dts: mediatek: Add mt7986 series

[Matthias Brugger]

Hi Sam,

On 12/10/2021 12:29, Sam Shih wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 15:53 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > I'd advise to split this series in parts for:
> > - basic device support via dts.
> > - pinctrl driver + dts
> > - clk driver + dts
>
> Okay, I will split the patches that are still under review into the
> above patch series.
>
> But I have a dumb question, currently, we have some patches that have
> been assigned version numbers.
> If I want to seprate original patch series, and resend 3 new patch
> series (basic / pinctrl / clock) according to your comment, if I want
> to keep the preview change log, tags in the patch set:
>
> like:
> ---
> v3: changed 'MT7986' to 'MT7986 series' in the commit message
> v2: added an Acked-by tag
> ---
>
> Which version number should I use for these new patch series ?

I'd use v4 keeping the change-log and adding a link with hint to v3 in the cover 
letter.

> Does the version number in corver-letter and the version number in each
> patch need to be the same in the entire patch series ?

Yes, otherwise the version number doesn't make to much sense.

> // (Original patch series/thread, version number is v3)
> [PATCH v3 0/3] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt7986
>    [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: arm64: dts: mediatek: Add mt7986 series
>    // (the version number has been updated to v5 previously)
>    // (basic part only, not include pinctrl and clock nodes)
>    [PATCH v5 2/3] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986a support
>    [PATCH v5 3/3] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986b support

use v6 explaining where in the mailing list one can find v5.

> // (New clock driver patch series)
> [PATCH 0/3] Add clock driver support for mediatek mt7986
>    [PATCH v3,1/3] dt-bindings: clock: mediatek: document clk bindings
> for mediatek mt7986 SoC
>    // (the version number has been updated to v3 previously)
>    [PATCH v3 2/3] clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock IDs
>    [PATCH v2 3/3] clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support

Same here, use v4.

> // (New pinctrl driver patch series)
> [PATCH 0/4] Add pinctrl driver support for mediatek mt7986
>    // (the version number has been updated to v6 previously)
>    [PATCH v6 1/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: update bindings for MT7986 SoC
>    // (the version number has been updated to v2 previously)
>    [PATCH v2 2/4] pinctrl: mediatek: add support for MT7986 SoC
>    [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986a pinctrl support
>    [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986b pinctrl support

use v7 here.

> > I would also advise to not send new versions of patches as new
> > threads and don't
> > respond in the same thread. At least for me that breaks my workflow
> > as I use b4.
>
> If I don't respond to the next patch set in the same thread, should I
> create an entire new patch series ?

Respond to any review comments in the thread but once you are ready to send a 
new version of the patch, send the whole series with an incremented

> For example, if I want to update PATCH 2/3 in the bellows patch series,
> and my PATCH 1/3 has been accepted by reviewer previously
>
> [PATCH v2 0/3] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt7986
>    [PATCH v2 1/3] ...   (patch set v1, applied by matainer)

beware: applied != accepted
reviewer != maintainer

if the patch got applied to some maintainer repo, then in the next version drop 
that patch (it is already applied) but mention that in the cover letter.

>    [PATCH v2 2/3] ...   (patch set v2, need to be upgrade to v3)
>    [PATCH v2 3/3] ...   (patch set v1, waiting for review)

This series would be v3, if 1/3 is applied, drop. 2/3 will have changes and 3/3 
will be the same as in v2.

> Is this correct to send patch mail to maintaiers for the above
> situation ?
>
> [PATCH v3 0/2] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt7986
>    [PATCH v3 1/2] ...   (patch set v3)
>    [PATCH v3 2/2] ...   (still patch set v1, waiting for review)

yes, that's how is expected you send your patches.

Let me know if you have any further questions :)

Regards,
Matthias

> > Regards,
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> > On 24/09/2021 13:40, Sam Shih wrote:
> > > MT7986 series is Mediatek's new 4-core SoC, which is mainly for
> > > wifi-router application. The difference between mt7986a and mt7986b
> > > is that some pins do not exist on mt7986b.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sam Shih <sam.shih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > v3: changed 'MT7986' to 'MT7986 series' in the commit message
> > > v2: added an Acked-by tag
> > > ---
> > >    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml | 8 ++++++++
> > >    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml
> > > index 80a05f6fee85..a9a778269684 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml
> > > @@ -76,6 +76,14 @@ properties:
> > >              - enum:
> > >                  - mediatek,mt7629-rfb
> > >              - const: mediatek,mt7629
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - enum:
> > > +              - mediatek,mt7986a-rfb
> > > +          - const: mediatek,mt7986a
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - enum:
> > > +              - mediatek,mt7986b-rfb
> > > +          - const: mediatek,mt7986b
> > >          - items:
> > >              - enum:
> > >                  - mediatek,mt8127-moose
>
> Thanks,
> Sam