Re: [PATCH 16/20] dt-bindings: memory: snps: Detach Zynq DDRC controller support

[Serge Semin]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:30:22AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/08/2022 11:27, Serge Semin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:22:08AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 23/08/2022 11:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> On 22/08/2022 22:07, Serge Semin wrote:
> >>>> The Zynq A05 DDRC controller has nothing in common with DW uMCTL2 DDRC:
> >>>> the CSRs layout is absolutely different and it doesn't has IRQ unlike DW
> >>>> uMCTL2 DDR controller of all versions (v1.x, v2.x and v3.x). Thus there is
> >>>> no any reason to have these controllers described by the same bindings.
> >>>> Thus let's split them up.
> >>>>
> >>>> While at it rename the original Synopsys uMCTL2 DT-schema file to a more
> >>>> descriptive - snps,dw-umctl2-ddrc.yaml and add a more detailed title and
> >>>> description of the device bindings.
> >>>
> >>> Filename should be based on compatible, so if renaming then
> >>> snps,ddrc-3.80a.yaml or snps,ddrc.yaml... which leads to original
> >>> filename anyway. Therefore nack for rename.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, if you perform renames, generate patches with proper -M/-C/-B
> >>> arguments so this is detected.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> --->  .../snps,dw-umctl2-ddrc.yaml                  | 51 +++++++++++++
> >>>
> >>> This is a mess. I did not get any cover letters, any other patches any
> >>> description of relation between this and your other one.
> >>>
> >>> It seems you make independent and conflicting changes to the same file,
> >>> so this has to be properly organized.
> >>>
> >>> Send entire patchset with cover letter with description of all
> >>> dependencies to all maintainers.
> >>>
> >>> This is unreviewable now, so a no.
> >>
> > 
> >> And also untestable by Rob's bot, so will have to wait.
> > 
> > For what reason it's untestable? The patch has no dependencies from
> > any other patchset.
> 

> This one is testable, but the next one is not, because it depends on
> something. I don't see the reason to split the bindings between
> different patchsets.

Really, do you want me to collect all 55 patches in a single patchset?

Please read the cover letter more carefully. And please don't hurry
with your judgement before nacking here and there.

-Sergey

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof