lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree
From
Date
On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 17:52 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 02/10/2018 12:12 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> > Hello Sean,
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:43:28PM +0100, Marcus Folkesson wrote:
> >> Hello Sean,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 07:10:02PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Marcus
> >>>
> >>> The changes you made for dt-bindings and driver should be put into
> >>> separate patches.
> >>
> >> I actually thought about it but chose to have it in the same patch because I
> >> did not see any direct advantage to separating them.
> >>
> >> But I can do that.
> >> I will come up with a v3 with this change if no one thinks differently.
> >>
> >
> > When looking at the git log, I'm not that convinced it should be
> > separate patches.
> >
> > For example, I found a4f741e3e157c3a5c8aea5f2ea62b692fbf17338 that is
> > doing the exact same thing as this patch.
> >
> > There is plenty of patches that mixes the code change and dt bindings
> > updates.
> > Could it not be useful to overview both the implementation and
> > dt-mapping change in one view?
> >
> > If you or anyone else still think it should be separated, please let me know and I will
> > come up with a v3.
> >
>
> If we were talking about something new, specifically new and unapproved DT bindings,
> it should be separate patches. However, that is not the case here. The DT bindings
> are well established. Sure, we could be pedantic and request a split into two
> patches. However, the only benefit of that would be more work for the maintainers,
> ie Wim and myself (including me having to send this e-mail). I don't really see
> the point of that.
>
> I have already sent my Reviewed-by:, and I don't intend to withdraw it.
>
Hi, both

Sorry for that if I caused any inconvenience to you. I didn't really
insist on if the patch is needed to split into two, which totally
depends on whether dt maintainers like it.

The change for dt-binding is usually added as a split patch with
dt-bindings as a prefix. This way I thought dt maintainers is not
easy to miss those patches and also can give some useful feedback
for them.

Sean

> Thanks,
> Guenter
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-11 08:47    [W:0.074 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site