Re: [PATCH v11 3/5] dt-bindings: clock: meson: add A1 PLL and Peripherals clkcs bindings

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/03/2023 13:39, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> 
> On Mon 27 Mar 2023 at 13:51, Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:51:21AM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue 21 Mar 2023 at 22:30, Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add the documentation for Amlogic A1 PLL and Amlogic A1 Peripherals
>>>> clock drivers.
>>>> Introduce Amlogic A1 PLL and Amlogic A1 Peripherals device tree
>>>> bindings and include them to MAINTAINERS.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jian Hu <jian.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-clkc.yaml       |  73 +++++++++++
>>>>  .../bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-pll-clkc.yaml   |  59 +++++++++
>>>>  MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>>>>  include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-clkc.h   | 113 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  .../dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-pll-clkc.h   |  21 ++++
>>>>  5 files changed, 267 insertions(+)
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-clkc.yaml
>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,a1-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>
>>> There is two drivers (and 2 independent patches). There should be 2
>>> bindings patches as well.
>>>
>>
>> Before, in previous versions I had two versions, but it wasn't bisectable
>> approach.
> 
> You are confusing bisectable and Rob's robot. Splitting patches is more
> that likely to help bisect (and patches backport) - not the other way around.

No, he did not confuse. Splitting patches makes the series
non-bisectable which was visible in the past.

What's more, there is no reason to have bindings patches split just
because you split drivers. Bindings are independent of drivers - we
write them for hardware description.

> 
>> a1-clkc schema depends on a1-pll-clkc headers and vice versa.
>> It means dt schemas checkers will show us failure if we split them into two
>> patchsets.
> 
> Only because you are patches are not upstream yet ...
> 
>> I know, that we can use raw digits instead of CLKID names, but IMO it doesn't
>> look like production schema and it requires one more patchset above the
>> series with proper CLKID definitons usage and proper header including.
>>
>> BTW, there is an example of Rob's test bot failure found in the previous
>> v10 patch series due to chicken or the egg problem.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/167769997208.7087.5344356236212731922.robh@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Please advise what's the best practice to resolve that..
> 
> Don't use the header in your example would solve the problem and
> still be correct DT wise.
> 
> The examples are just examples, they are not required to actually
> matches a real HW, as far as I know.

Yes, that would work... or just keep them here.


Best regards,
Krzysztof