Re: [PATCH 00/14] mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: improve DTS style

[Justin Swartz]

On 2024-03-17 17:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/03/2024 16:49, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:54 AM Justin Swartz
> > <justin.swartz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > This set of patches was created with the intention of cleaning up
> > > arch/mips/boot/dts/ralink/mt7621.dtsi so that it is aligned with
> > > the Devicetree Sources (DTS) Coding Style [1] [2] guide.
> > >
> > > [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.rst
> > >
> > > [2] https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/dts-coding-style.html
> > >
> > > Justin Swartz (14):
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpu node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder cpuintc node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc regulator attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder sysc node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gpio node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder i2c node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder spi0 node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: move pinctrl and sort its children
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder mmc node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder gic node attributes
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder ethernet node attributes and 
> > > kids
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pcie node attributes and 
> > > children
> > >   mips: dts: ralink: mt7621: reorder pci?_phy attributes
>
> These are all simple cleanups for the same file. It's one patch, not 
> 15.

I agree these are all simple cleanups.

Even though the cleanup pattern was the same, or very similar,
for each node affected, the intention was to isolate each change
to a single node (or a grouping of nodes of that seemed logical
to me) so that if anyone had any objections, the discussion would
be easier to follow in subthreads identifiable by patch names (and
thus subject lines) that clearly indicate the context.

But if there're no objections and it lessens the burden on
maintainers upstream to have less patches to apply, then I have no
problem combining them into a single patch.

Regards
Justin