On 06/11/2026 08:28, Hongliang Yang wrote:
On 06/11/2026 08:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
quoted
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.
quoted
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/ (local)
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.
You still combine USB with other subsystem. Identify subsystems here,
please.
1. USB
2. SoC, no?
DTS cannot be placed here.
Best regards,
Krzysztof