Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] dt-bindings: soc: google: gs101-pmu: allow power domains as children

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 30/03/2026 14:00, André Draszik wrote:
> On Sat, 2026-03-21 at 20:14 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> This causes warnings, so I dropped the patches.
> 
> I assume warnings are because I didn't make it clear enough that patch
> 2 is actually required?

No, these are obvious errors coming from bindings. You can try yourself
instead of asking maintainer to run the commands for you...

> 
>> I really do not
>> understand how this is organized. This is not a dependency for pm
>> domains driver but it is included here.
> 
> The binding is being updated, and the driver follows suit. 
> I particular, the driver needs to be aware that pd is (can be) a child
> of pmu.
> 
> Yes, the driver does not depend on this binding update, but it shows what
> the driver must support. I believe this is what we have done in the past:
> binding and driver updates in same series.

Yes, foo-binding goes with foo-driver to foo-subsystem. It does not mean
you put here completely different bindings. Why? Because just like foo
goes to foo-subsystem, then bar-binding goes with bar-driver to
bar-subsystem.

> 
> I could move patches 3 and 4 from this series together with a DTS
> update patch into a separate series, if that would be deemed a better
> approach?

I asked you what are the dependencies and you answer there are some but
you can move it outside of patchset. So are there or are there not
dependencies? If there are, then you cannot move out. But then I ask
what are the dependencies.

It feels like question to trick the maintainer. Maintainer complained,
so you propose whatever he objected to without understanding whether
this is correct or not correct approach.

> 
>> It is a soft dependency for DTS,
>> but that is nowhere to be found.
> 
> I was waiting for review of all binding changes before posting DTS.

That would be fine explanation, if you also read maintainer soc profile
for Samsung and try what is written there. You would see that you
introduced new warnings without any fix possible as far as next is
concerned.

Best regards,
Krzysztof