Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <6acbebb6-177c-c5b5-f9e8-a374b9276fc1@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:26:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] pwm: dwc: add of/platform support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@sifive.com>, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@sifive.com>,
        Jude Onyenegecha <jude.onyenegecha@sifive.com>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@sifive.com>,
        William Salmon <william.salmon@sifive.com>,
        Adnan Chowdhury <adnan.chowdhury@sifive.com>
References: <20220712100113.569042-1-ben.dooks@sifive.com>
 <20220712100113.569042-4-ben.dooks@sifive.com>
 <fdef31b4-9c27-ddda-f1e5-ee881812aa4e@linaro.org>
 <3a1eea1f-b598-58ad-60a6-c76b77cb08c4@sifive.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <3a1eea1f-b598-58ad-60a6-c76b77cb08c4@sifive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 13/07/2022 11:21, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 11:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/07/2022 12:01, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> The dwc pwm controller can be used in non-PCI systems, so allow
>>> either platform or OF based probing.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@sifive.com>
>>> ---
>>>   .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-synposys.yaml | 40 ++++++++++++++
>>
>> Bindings must be a separate patch. Preferably first in the series. Use
>> proper subject prefix matching the subsystem.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
> 
> Thanks, seems counter-intuitive that one change is split up like that.

Why? Bindings are not really related to driver implementation, they are
shared with other projects. Binding reviewers usually care less about
implementation, so combining it with drivers forces me to read carefully
each one of 300 emails I receive...

Anyway, that's the policy since years, so nothing new here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof