On Sat, 2018-02-10 at 17:52 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:

On 02/10/2018 12:12 PM, Marcus Folkesson wrote:

quoted

Hello Sean,

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:43:28PM +0100, Marcus Folkesson wrote:

quoted

Hello Sean,

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 07:10:02PM +0800, Sean Wang wrote:

quoted

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