Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:31:20 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: update compatible name for match with driver | From | Tengfei Fan <> |
| |
On 3/13/2024 5:11 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 13/03/2024 08:55, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>>>>>> Wasn't this applied? >>>>>> >>>>>> My test code base on tag: next-20240308, this patch is still not applied. >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, the following dt binding check warning only can be got before >>>>>> this patch is applied. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please read all emails in the previous thread. You ignored two emails in >>>>> the past and apparently one more recent. >>>> >>>> I don't know if you mean I ignored the email which related with "Patch >>>> applied" tag from Linus Walleij. If so, the following is the reasion why >>>> I still include this patch: >>> >>> Yep, that's the one. Please do not send patches which were already >>> applied. It causes unnecessary effort on reviewer and maintainer side. >>> >>>> >>>> I synced the latest upstream code on 03/12/2024, the latest tag is >>>> next-20240308, this tag still doesn't include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2]. >>> >>> Happens, considering Linus applied it after 8th of March, I think. >>> >>>> >>>> Dt binding check still get warning if I only send [PATCH v3 2/2] patch >>>> to upstream base on next-20240308. so I include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2] >>> >>> If you send patch 1+2, dt_binding_check will have exactly the same >>> result. I don't know about what sort of dt binding check you talk, but >>> for all cases: you changed nothing by sending these two patches in that >>> regard. Only noise on the lists. >> >> The dt binding check failed which Rob Herring remind me in previous >> patch series as the following: > > This does not make any sense. Whether Rob runs his test on previous or > future next, changes nothing in regard of this patchset being sent with > duplicated patch or not. The result will be exactly the same for Rob. > >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm4450-tlmm.example.dtb: >> /example-0/pinctrl@f100000: failed to match any schema with >> compatible: ['qcom,sm4450-tlmm'] >> >> This failed is introduced by >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20231206020840.33228-2-quic_tengfan@quicinc.com/. >> Something got broken aroud -m flags for dtschema, so indeed no reports >> this unmatched compatibles warning when this patch was revriwed. We also >> have some discusstion in patch email. > > Again, not related at all whether you send patch *which was applied* or not. > >> >> The patch[PATCH v3 1/2] is made for fix this previous patch dt binding >> check failed. So dt binding check failed will disappear after this >> patch[PATCH v3 1/2] is applied. > > And who is supposed to run that dt binding check and on what base? Your > patch changes absolutely nothing in that regard, just creates confusion. > > And the fact that you keep arguing over this simple case, reminds me > other clueless discussions I had with some Qualcomm folks. None of the > arguments you brought here justify sending patch which was applied.
Sending duplicated patch isn't a correct approach, I will avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
> >> >>> >>>> in patch series even if this patch have "Patch applied" tag. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to getting your advice if submitting patch series this >>>> way is problematic. >>> >>> Do not send patches which are known to be applied. >> >> Yes, I will be careful not to resend the patch which have already been >> applied in the future work. > > Then why do you keep arguing that sending this duplicated patch was > correct approach? There may be some confusion here. Sending this duplicated patch isn't a correct approach, I will not send duplicated patch again in the future upstream work.
> >> >> Do you think it is necessary to send another version patch series for >> remove this applied patch[PATCH v3 1/2] from patch series? > > No. It is merge window, please read process documents in Documentation > directory. Then please read Qualcomm upstreaming guide. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
-- Thx and BRs, Tengfei Fan
| |