On 14/08/2024 13:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 14/08/2024 12:59, Arend van Spriel wrote:

quoted

On 8/14/2024 12:39 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 14/08/2024 12:08, Arend van Spriel wrote:

quoted

On 8/14/2024 10:53 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 13/08/2024 19:04, Arend Van Spriel wrote:

quoted

On August 13, 2024 10:20:24 AM Jacobe Zang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

It's the device id used by AP6275P which is the Wi-Fi module
used by Rockchip's RK3588 evaluation board and also used in
some other RK3588 boards.

Hi Kalle,

There probably will be a v11, but wanted to know how this series will be
handled as it involves device tree bindings, arm arch device tree spec, and
brcmfmac driver code. Can it all go through wireless-next?

No, DTS must not go via wireless-next. Please split it from the series
and provide lore link in changelog for bindings.

Hi Krzysztof,

Is it really important how the patches travel upstream to Linus. This
binding is specific to Broadcom wifi devices so there are no
dependencies(?). To clarify what you are asking I assume two separate
series:

1) DT binding + Khadas Edge2 DTS  -> devicetree@vger.kernel.org
	reference to:
https://patch.msgid.link/20240813082007.2625841-1-jacobe.zang@wesion.com

2) brcmfmac driver changes	  -> linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org

No. I said only DTS is separate. This was always the rule, since forever.

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst

I am going slightly mad (by Queen). That documents says:

   1) The Documentation/ and include/dt-bindings/ portion of the patch 
should
      be a separate patch.

and

   4) Submit the entire series to the devicetree mailinglist at

        devicetree@vger.kernel.org

Above I mentioned "series", not "patch". So 1) is a series of 3 patches 
(2 changes to the DT binding file and 1 patch for the Khadas Edge2 DTS. 
Is that correct?

My bookmark to elixir.bootling does not work, so could not paste
specific line. Now it works, so:

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L79

The rule was/is:
1. Binding for typical devices always go via subsystem tree, with the
driver changes.
There can be exceptions from above, e.g. some subsystems do not pick up
bindings, so Rob does. But how patches are organized is not an exception
- it is completely normal workflow.

2. DTS *always* goes via SoC maintainer. DTS cannot go via any other
driver subsystem tree. There is no exception here. There cannot be an
exception, because it would mean the hardware depends on driver, which
is obviously false.

In case my message was not clear: we talk here about organizing
patchsets, not individual patches. If you ask about patches, then DTS,
bindings and driver are all separate patches. This set already is split
like that, so this was fine and I did not comment on it. Only through
whom the DTS patch goes - separate tree.

And just in case: this is neither specific to wireless nor to Broadcom.
This is for entire Linux kernel.

Best regards,
Krzysztof