Re: [PATCH v1 7/8] tpm: tis-i2c: Add more compatible strings

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Wed Jan 10 2024 - 16:42:02 EST

On 1/10/24 12:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/01/2024 20:06, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 1/10/24 09:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/01/2024 16:54, Ninad Palsule wrote:
Hello Krzysztof,


On 1/10/24 09:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 10/01/2024 15:31, Ninad Palsule wrote:
Hello Krzysztof,



I have send it as a separate commit. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20231214144954.3833998-1-ninad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Why did you do that? It now just adds undocumented compatibles to the
driver. Please, as Rob requested, work with Lukas on his series to make
sure that these devices are documented.
I think krzysztof kozlowski suggested to send these patches separately:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1c5ace65-2fd8-4503-b22f-e0f564d1c83f@xxxxxxxxxx/

Did I misunderstood it? Do you guys want me to include that commit again?
My comment was in DTS thread under specific DTS patch. How did you
figure out it applies to driver and bindings? This does not make sense.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Where do you want me to add driver
patch? Before all DTS patches or after all DTS patches?
Does not matter, why do you insist on combining them with DTS? Drivers
and bindings are going together. DTS better separate, although depending
on the case can be together.

I have combined DTS and Driver because DTS was using compatibility
string which is not upstream yet hence I thought it is logical to send
it under same patchset.

Sometimes yes, sometimes not. DTS must not go via driver subsystem, so
sending it in the same patchset has implications on maintainers applying
it. Some like it, some don't and you will be nagged for combining them.


"DTS must not go via driver subsystem"

I always thought the guideline was to submit separate _patches_ for dts
and driver changes, but as part of a single series. I didn't know that
there is a rule to submit separate patch _series_. I also didn't know
(and as far as I know no one called me on it) that I am not supposed
to _apply_ dts changes. So far, I typically applied dts changes together
with driver patches after receiving an Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
from a devicetree maintainer.

I did not notice you applying them, but such guideline - DTS must go via
respective SoC tree - was always repeated by me and SoC maintainers.
Just like gazillion other things probably was not documented... or even
if it was documented, it would be so deep among hundreds of other rules
nobody would find it. :)


This exchange suggests that I did it all wrong. Should I reject devicetree
patches submitted as part of a driver patch series going forward ?

I propose: just ignore them. The SoC maintainer will pick them up.

Should I not apply dts patches submitted as part of a patch series ?

No, please do not apply them.

If so, it would help to have some documentation I can point to to explain
the rationale to submitters (and myself). Also, in that case, how is the

Yes, it would. I can try to create something.

synchronization between device tree patches and driver patches supposed
to happen ?

There should not be synchronization. Just to remind: we talk about DTS
(so also DTSI and DTSO), thus everything being in arch/*/boot/dts/. We
do not talk about DT bindings, right? The bindings are obvious (and
documented): preferably go via driver subsystem, with fallback/special
cases via SoC tree and fallback to Rob.


Sorry, misunderstanding on my side. I do not and never did apply patches
in arch/*/boot/dts/. I referred to patches in Documentation/devicetree/

Sorry, I though you also referred to bindings. My bad.

Guenter