Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] dt-bindings: PCI: renesas,pci-rcar-gen2: 'depends-on' is no more optional

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 08/12/2022 16:51, Herve Codina wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 10:46:32 +0100
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 08/12/2022 10:05, Herve Codina wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 09:26:41 +0100
>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 07/12/2022 17:24, Herve Codina wrote:  
>>>>> The 'depends-on' property is set in involved DTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Move it to a required property.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/renesas,pci-rcar-gen2.yaml | 1 +    
>>>>
>>>> This should be squashed with previous patch. There is no point to add
>>>> property and immediately in the next patch make it required. Remember
>>>> that bindings are separate from DTS.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>  
>>>
>>> I though about make dtbs_check in case of git bisect.  
>>
>> And what would this commit change? In Git you will have
>> 1. dt-bindings: PCI: renesas,pci-rcar-gen2: Add depends-on for RZ/N1 SoC
>> family
>> 2. dt-bindings: PCI: renesas,pci-rcar-gen2: 'depends-on' is no more optional
>>
>> so what is the difference for git bisect?
> 
> Well, today, I have:
> 1. dt-bindings: Add depends-on
> 2. dts: Add depends-on
> 3. dt-bindings: Move depends-on to mandatory

What does it mean "I have"? Patches on mailing list? But we talk about
Git and I wrote you bindings are DTS are not going the same tree.

> 
> If I squash dt-bindings commits, I am going to have:
>   1. dt-bindings: Add mandatory depends-on
>   2. dts: Add depends-on
> or
>   1. dts: Add depends-on
>   2. dt-bindings: Add mandatory depends-on

And how does it matter? Anyway it goes separate trees.

> 
> I have not tested but if I used only the first commit in each
> case (git bisect):

It's not bisectable anyway, you cannot make it bisectable within one
release.

> In the first case, dtbs_check is probably going to signal the
> missing 'depends-on' property on dts.
> In the second case, dtbs_check is probably going to signal the
> not described 'depends-on' property present in dts.

And why is that even a problem?

Best regards,
Krzysztof