# Re: \[PATCH v6 1/3\] dt-bindings: usb: Add CIX Sky1 USBSSP controller

- From: Hongliang Yang \<hidden\>
- Date: 2026-11-06 07:28:58 
- List: linux-arm-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2026/11/17876307
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-usb/2026/11/17867170/t.md

```text
On 06/11/2026 08:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> So instead of replying under each comment, you selected a few of them
> and expect me to map/figure out which ones you ignored?

No. Compressing eight separate comments into one mail was the wrong way
to answer a review, and it is what made you match numbered paragraphs to
quotes yourself. I will answer under the individual messages instead.

> OK, then find me where did you reply to this:
>
> "And do not combine USB patches with other subsystems."
>
> "I do not see how you addressed my feedback from v1. I asked, not to
> combine USB patches with other subsystems, within one patchset. These
> are separate patchsets."

The first one, in the v1 thread:

  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260902032306.1182941-1-hongliang.yang@cixtech.com/

where I wrote "Done in v2: the combined bindings patch is split into
separate patches with dt-bindings: phy: and dt-bindings: usb: subject
prefixes, one schema per patch". That answer was only half true: v2
split the bindings into separate patches, but the PHY and the USB series
were still submitted together. The series were actually split in v4, and
have been separate since:

  [PATCH v4 0/3] Add CIX Sky1 USB3 PHY support
    [ref]
  [PATCH v4 0/4] Add CIX Sky1 USBSSP controller support
    [ref]

The second one, on the v3 cover (6ca4ba08): I did not reply to it. The
split went into v4 with no mail saying so. There is no reply I can point
you to for that message, and I am not going to claim there is.

What remains are the per-patch comments on the binding that my previous
mail answered in summary form. I will reply to those under your original
messages, one at a time, rather than restate them here.

Hongliang

```