Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] watchdog: mtk: allow setting timeout in devicetree | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:17:16 -0800 |
| |
On 02/10/2018 11:46 PM, Sean Wang wrote: > 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. >
With all the trouble this one-line change is making, I feel inclined to drop the patch for this driver.
Guenter
|  |