Hi Sam,

On 12/10/2021 12:29, Sam Shih wrote:

Hi

On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 15:53 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:

quoted

Hi Sam,

I'd advise to split this series in parts for:
- basic device support via dts.
- pinctrl driver + dts
- clk driver + dts

Okay, I will split the patches that are still under review into the
above patch series.

But I have a dumb question, currently, we have some patches that have
been assigned version numbers.
If I want to seprate original patch series, and resend 3 new patch
series (basic / pinctrl / clock) according to your comment, if I want
to keep the preview change log, tags in the patch set:

like:
---
v3: changed 'MT7986' to 'MT7986 series' in the commit message
v2: added an Acked-by tag
---

Which version number should I use for these new patch series ?

I'd use v4 keeping the change-log and adding a link with hint to v3 in the cover 
letter.

Does the version number in corver-letter and the version number in each
patch need to be the same in the entire patch series ?

Yes, otherwise the version number doesn't make to much sense.

// (Original patch series/thread, version number is v3)
[PATCH v3 0/3] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt7986
   [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: arm64: dts: mediatek: Add mt7986 series
   // (the version number has been updated to v5 previously)
   // (basic part only, not include pinctrl and clock nodes)
   [PATCH v5 2/3] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986a support
   [PATCH v5 3/3] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986b support

use v6 explaining where in the mailing list one can find v5.

// (New clock driver patch series)
[PATCH 0/3] Add clock driver support for mediatek mt7986
   [PATCH v3,1/3] dt-bindings: clock: mediatek: document clk bindings
for mediatek mt7986 SoC
   // (the version number has been updated to v3 previously)
   [PATCH v3 2/3] clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock IDs
   [PATCH v2 3/3] clk: mediatek: add mt7986 clock support

Same here, use v4.

// (New pinctrl driver patch series)
[PATCH 0/4] Add pinctrl driver support for mediatek mt7986
   // (the version number has been updated to v6 previously)
   [PATCH v6 1/4] dt-bindings: pinctrl: update bindings for MT7986 SoC
   // (the version number has been updated to v2 previously)
   [PATCH v2 2/4] pinctrl: mediatek: add support for MT7986 SoC
   [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986a pinctrl support
   [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: add mt7986b pinctrl support

use v7 here.

quoted

I would also advise to not send new versions of patches as new
threads and don't
respond in the same thread. At least for me that breaks my workflow
as I use b4.

If I don't respond to the next patch set in the same thread, should I
create an entire new patch series ?

Respond to any review comments in the thread but once you are ready to send a 
new version of the patch, send the whole series with an incremented

For example, if I want to update PATCH 2/3 in the bellows patch series,
and my PATCH 1/3 has been accepted by reviewer previously

[PATCH v2 0/3] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt7986
   [PATCH v2 1/3] ...   (patch set v1, applied by matainer)

beware: applied != accepted
reviewer != maintainer

if the patch got applied to some maintainer repo, then in the next version drop 
that patch (it is already applied) but mention that in the cover letter.

   [PATCH v2 2/3] ...   (patch set v2, need to be upgrade to v3)
   [PATCH v2 3/3] ...   (patch set v1, waiting for review)

This series would be v3, if 1/3 is applied, drop. 2/3 will have changes and 3/3 
will be the same as in v2.

Is this correct to send patch mail to maintaiers for the above
situation ?

[PATCH v3 0/2] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt7986
   [PATCH v3 1/2] ...   (patch set v3)
   [PATCH v3 2/2] ...   (still patch set v1, waiting for review)

yes, that's how is expected you send your patches.

Let me know if you have any further questions :)

Regards,
Matthias

quoted

Regards,
Matthias


On 24/09/2021 13:40, Sam Shih wrote:

quoted

MT7986 series is Mediatek's new 4-core SoC, which is mainly for
wifi-router application. The difference between mt7986a and mt7986b
is that some pins do not exist on mt7986b.

Signed-off-by: Sam Shih <redacted>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

---
v3: changed 'MT7986' to 'MT7986 series' in the commit message
v2: added an Acked-by tag
---
   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml | 8 ++++++++
   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml
index 80a05f6fee85..a9a778269684 100644

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/mediatek.yaml

@@ -76,6 +76,14 @@ properties:
             - enum:
                 - mediatek,mt7629-rfb
             - const: mediatek,mt7629
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - mediatek,mt7986a-rfb
+          - const: mediatek,mt7986a
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - mediatek,mt7986b-rfb
+          - const: mediatek,mt7986b
         - items:
             - enum:
                 - mediatek,mt8127-moose

Thanks,
Sam

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel