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;
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:55:36 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] gpiolib: of: add a quirk for reset line for Marvell
 NFC controller
Message-ID: <Y0cNqBKm7LhZd28t@google.com>
References: <20221011-gpiolib-quirks-v1-0-e01d9d3e7b29@gmail.com>
 <20221011-gpiolib-quirks-v1-4-e01d9d3e7b29@gmail.com>
 <Y0aW7vDxfNa/8bAk@maple.lan>
 <Y0cLLraNFVXtD2/k@google.com>
 <Y0cMibfIomw3S5dc@maple.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y0cMibfIomw3S5dc@maple.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 07:50:49PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:45:02AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:29:02AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 03:19:32PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > The controller is using non-standard "reset-n-io" name for its reset
> > > > gpio property, whereas gpiod API expects "<name>-gpios". Add a quirk
> > > > so that gpiod API will still work on unmodified DTSes.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > How/when has/will the DT bindings documentation for this hardware be
> > > updated to describe the new bindings?
> > >
> > > Delivering the quirks ahead of driver updates is great for avoiding
> > > merge conflicts but it also conceals the rename from reviewers so
> > > risks neglecting to update the bindings.
> >
> > I was planning on sending binding updates once driver patches land.
> 
> I'd have a (weak) preference for them being shared in the same patchset.
> Maintainers can either ack or the changes can land seperately but
> having them in the same patchset helps avoid having to quibble or check!

OK, so how about once we agree and land this patchset to gpiolib I can
blast driver patches + binding patches together?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry