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: <3613f6ed-f8ad-a62c-6c0d-932bca7956dd@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:27:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8180x: Add interconnects and
 lmh
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230530162454.51708-1-vkoul@kernel.org>
 <20230530162454.51708-8-vkoul@kernel.org>
 <7d4089df-e572-4d3b-6fb7-061d69479dce@linaro.org> <ZHhF7zbPYyqdfURV@matsya>
 <20230601132717.yslaigqg4lprkniv@ripper>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230601132717.yslaigqg4lprkniv@ripper>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/06/2023 15:27, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 12:47:03PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> On 31-05-23, 10:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2023 18:24, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>> This add interconnect nodes and add LMH to sc8180x SoC dtsi
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> I don't understand why this was split. We talked on IRC many times on
>>> this - artificial splits are not "release early, release often". Your
>>> previous patchset was correct in that approach, but why this is separate
>>> patch?
>>
>> Coz the patch was big to review. This is usual Linux approach to break a
>> change into smaller chunks for review!
>>
> 
> We break patches into small, logical units so that it's easy to follow
> the thought through each step in the process of introducing a change.

For example splitting interconnects which are essential part of several
IP blocks is not making it easy. One patch introduces incomplete block
which is then fixed (completed) in next patch.

> 
> This is not the same thing as splitting one logical change into multiple
> smaller patches to keep the line count of each patch down. This just
> forces the reviewer to jump between emails to get the full picture of
> the logical change.

Reviewer has to jump here to see full picture of UART or some other IP
block.

Best regards,
Krzysztof