Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-22737-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <32d46b64-d4a5-437a-8737-c2d172608559@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 21:34:53 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/8] tpm: tis-i2c: Add more compatible strings
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, Ninad Palsule <ninad@linux.ibm.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
 conor+dt@kernel.org, joel@jms.id.au, andrew@codeconstruct.com.au,
 peterhuewe@gmx.de, jarkko@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, keescook@chromium.org,
 tony.luck@intel.com, gpiccoli@igalia.com, johannes.holland@infineon.com,
 broonie@kernel.org, patrick.rudolph@9elements.com, vincent@vtremblay.dev,
 peteryin.openbmc@gmail.com, lakshmiy@us.ibm.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
 naresh.solanki@9elements.com, alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com,
 festevam@denx.de, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, geissonator@yahoo.com
References: <20231212164004.1683589-1-ninad@linux.ibm.com>
 <20231212164004.1683589-8-ninad@linux.ibm.com>
 <20231212-avid-grill-dbead068fac8@spud>
 <73381bb0-7fa7-4a9e-88df-ab0063058e26@roeck-us.net>
 <20231212-mouth-choice-40a83caa34ec@spud>
 <2946fbb1-2a47-4d21-83dc-8e45bf6ba5a9@roeck-us.net>
 <60c8bbdb-4e08-44f0-88d4-ab164d4843b5@linux.ibm.com>
 <20240109-pep-coerce-2a86ae88753d@spud>
 <01974929-dfbf-4989-ba39-369e521827d0@linux.ibm.com>
 <3d194e84-bf1a-48e4-a376-e5c327c6508d@linaro.org>
 <2dd37d2b-28da-4e73-9047-61ec5d64bdb5@linux.ibm.com>
 <edbefdfd-eb59-4d86-ad07-feb066a21082@linaro.org>
 <385b06e9-1daa-408a-a0ed-7b09d7d539df@linux.ibm.com>
 <d56b1e3e-72c4-427f-937d-8c8146bf5b28@linaro.org>
 <3830c26d-96be-4084-a04d-8edb9ccbab5e@roeck-us.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Autocrypt: addr=krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org; keydata=
 xsFNBFVDQq4BEAC6KeLOfFsAvFMBsrCrJ2bCalhPv5+KQF2PS2+iwZI8BpRZoV+Bd5kWvN79
 cFgcqTTuNHjAvxtUG8pQgGTHAObYs6xeYJtjUH0ZX6ndJ33FJYf5V3yXqqjcZ30FgHzJCFUu
 JMp7PSyMPzpUXfU12yfcRYVEMQrmplNZssmYhiTeVicuOOypWugZKVLGNm0IweVCaZ/DJDIH
 gNbpvVwjcKYrx85m9cBVEBUGaQP6AT7qlVCkrf50v8bofSIyVa2xmubbAwwFA1oxoOusjPIE
 J3iadrwpFvsZjF5uHAKS+7wHLoW9hVzOnLbX6ajk5Hf8Pb1m+VH/E8bPBNNYKkfTtypTDUCj
 NYcd27tjnXfG+SDs/EXNUAIRefCyvaRG7oRYF3Ec+2RgQDRnmmjCjoQNbFrJvJkFHlPeHaeS
 BosGY+XWKydnmsfY7SSnjAzLUGAFhLd/XDVpb1Een2XucPpKvt9ORF+48gy12FA5GduRLhQU
 vK4tU7ojoem/G23PcowM1CwPurC8sAVsQb9KmwTGh7rVz3ks3w/zfGBy3+WmLg++C2Wct6nM
 Pd8/6CBVjEWqD06/RjI2AnjIq5fSEH/BIfXXfC68nMp9BZoy3So4ZsbOlBmtAPvMYX6U8VwD
 TNeBxJu5Ex0Izf1NV9CzC3nNaFUYOY8KfN01X5SExAoVTr09ewARAQABzTRLcnp5c3p0b2Yg
 S296bG93c2tpIDxrcnp5c3p0b2Yua296bG93c2tpQGxpbmFyby5vcmc+wsGUBBMBCgA+FiEE
 m9B+DgxR+NWWd7dUG5NDfTtBYpsFAmI+BxMCGwMFCRRfreEFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwEC
 HgECF4AACgkQG5NDfTtBYptgbhAAjAGunRoOTduBeC7V6GGOQMYIT5n3OuDSzG1oZyM4kyvO
 XeodvvYv49/ng473E8ZFhXfrre+c1olbr1A8pnz9vKVQs9JGVa6wwr/6ddH7/yvcaCQnHRPK
 mnXyP2BViBlyDWQ71UC3N12YCoHE2cVmfrn4JeyK/gHCvcW3hUW4i5rMd5M5WZAeiJj3rvYh
 v8WMKDJOtZFXxwaYGbvFJNDdvdTHc2x2fGaWwmXMJn2xs1ZyFAeHQvrp49mS6PBQZzcx0XL5
 cU9ZjhzOZDn6Apv45/C/lUJvPc3lo/pr5cmlOvPq1AsP6/xRXsEFX/SdvdxJ8w9KtGaxdJuf
 rpzLQ8Ht+H0lY2On1duYhmro8WglOypHy+TusYrDEry2qDNlc/bApQKtd9uqyDZ+rx8bGxyY
 qBP6bvsQx5YACI4p8R0J43tSqWwJTP/R5oPRQW2O1Ye1DEcdeyzZfifrQz58aoZrVQq+innR
 aDwu8qDB5UgmMQ7cjDSeAQABdghq7pqrA4P8lkA7qTG+aw8Z21OoAyZdUNm8NWJoQy8m4nUP
 gmeeQPRc0vjp5JkYPgTqwf08cluqO6vQuYL2YmwVBIbO7cE7LNGkPDA3RYMu+zPY9UUi/ln5
 dcKuEStFZ5eqVyqVoZ9eu3RTCGIXAHe1NcfcMT9HT0DPp3+ieTxFx6RjY3kYTGLOwU0EVUNc
 NAEQAM2StBhJERQvgPcbCzjokShn0cRA4q2SvCOvOXD+0KapXMRFE+/PZeDyfv4dEKuCqeh0
 hihSHlaxTzg3TcqUu54w2xYskG8Fq5tg3gm4kh1Gvh1LijIXX99ABA8eHxOGmLPRIBkXHqJY
 oHtCvPc6sYKNM9xbp6I4yF56xVLmHGJ61KaWKf5KKWYgA9kfHufbja7qR0c6H79LIsiYqf92
 H1HNq1WlQpu/fh4/XAAaV1axHFt/dY/2kU05tLMj8GjeQDz1fHas7augL4argt4e+jum3Nwt
 yupodQBxncKAUbzwKcDrPqUFmfRbJ7ARw8491xQHZDsP82JRj4cOJX32sBg8nO2N5OsFJOcd
 5IE9v6qfllkZDAh1Rb1h6DFYq9dcdPAHl4zOj9EHq99/CpyccOh7SrtWDNFFknCmLpowhct9
 5ZnlavBrDbOV0W47gO33WkXMFI4il4y1+Bv89979rVYn8aBohEgET41SpyQz7fMkcaZU+ok/
 +HYjC/qfDxT7tjKXqBQEscVODaFicsUkjheOD4BfWEcVUqa+XdUEciwG/SgNyxBZepj41oVq
 FPSVE+Ni2tNrW/e16b8mgXNngHSnbsr6pAIXZH3qFW+4TKPMGZ2rZ6zITrMip+12jgw4mGjy
 5y06JZvA02rZT2k9aa7i9dUUFggaanI09jNGbRA/ABEBAAHCwXwEGAEKACYCGwwWIQSb0H4O
 DFH41ZZ3t1Qbk0N9O0FimwUCYDzvagUJFF+UtgAKCRAbk0N9O0Fim9JzD/0auoGtUu4mgnna
 oEEpQEOjgT7l9TVuO3Qa/SeH+E0m55y5Fjpp6ZToc481za3xAcxK/BtIX5Wn1mQ6+szfrJQ6
 59y2io437BeuWIRjQniSxHz1kgtFECiV30yHRgOoQlzUea7FgsnuWdstgfWi6LxstswEzxLZ
 Sj1EqpXYZE4uLjh6dW292sO+j4LEqPYr53hyV4I2LPmptPE9Rb9yCTAbSUlzgjiyyjuXhcwM
 qf3lzsm02y7Ooq+ERVKiJzlvLd9tSe4jRx6Z6LMXhB21fa5DGs/tHAcUF35hSJrvMJzPT/+u
 /oVmYDFZkbLlqs2XpWaVCo2jv8+iHxZZ9FL7F6AHFzqEFdqGnJQqmEApiRqH6b4jRBOgJ+cY
 qc+rJggwMQcJL9F+oDm3wX47nr6jIsEB5ZftdybIzpMZ5V9v45lUwmdnMrSzZVgC4jRGXzsU
 EViBQt2CopXtHtYfPAO5nAkIvKSNp3jmGxZw4aTc5xoAZBLo0OV+Ezo71pg3AYvq0a3/oGRG
 KQ06ztUMRrj8eVtpImjsWCd0bDWRaaR4vqhCHvAG9iWXZu4qh3ipie2Y0oSJygcZT7H3UZxq
 fyYKiqEmRuqsvv6dcbblD8ZLkz1EVZL6djImH5zc5x8qpVxlA0A0i23v5QvN00m6G9NFF0Le
 D2GYIS41Kv4Isx2dEFh+/Q==
In-Reply-To: <3830c26d-96be-4084-a04d-8edb9ccbab5e@roeck-us.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/01/2024 20:06, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/10/24 09:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 10/01/2024 16:54, Ninad Palsule wrote:
>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/10/24 09:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2024 15:31, Ninad Palsule wrote:
>>>>> Hello Krzysztof,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have send it as a separate commit. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20231214144954.3833998-1-ninad@linux.ibm.com/
>>>>>>>> Why did you do that? It now just adds undocumented compatibles to the
>>>>>>>> driver. Please, as Rob requested, work with Lukas on his series to make
>>>>>>>> sure that these devices are documented.
>>>>>>> I think krzysztof kozlowski suggested to send these patches separately:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/1c5ace65-2fd8-4503-b22f-e0f564d1c83f@linaro.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did I misunderstood it? Do you guys want me to include that commit again?
>>>>>> My comment was in DTS thread under specific DTS patch. How did you
>>>>>> figure out it applies to driver and bindings? This does not make sense.
>>>>> Sorry for the misunderstanding. Where do you want me to add driver
>>>>> patch? Before all DTS patches or after all DTS patches?
>>>> Does not matter, why do you insist on combining them with DTS? Drivers
>>>> and bindings are going together. DTS better separate, although depending
>>>> on the case can be together.
>>>>
>>> I have combined DTS and Driver because DTS was using compatibility
>>> string which is not upstream yet hence I thought it is logical to send
>>> it under same patchset.
>>
>> Sometimes yes, sometimes not. DTS must not go via driver subsystem, so
>> sending it in the same patchset has implications on maintainers applying
>> it. Some like it, some don't and you will be nagged for combining them.
>>
> 
> "DTS must not go via driver subsystem"
> 
> I always thought the guideline was to submit separate _patches_ for dts
> and driver changes, but as part of a single series. I didn't know that
> there is a rule to submit separate patch _series_. I also didn't know
> (and as far as I know no one called me on it) that I am not supposed
> to _apply_ dts changes. So far, I typically applied dts changes together
> with driver patches after receiving an Acked-by: or Reviewed-by:
> from a devicetree maintainer.

I did not notice you applying them, but such guideline - DTS must go via
respective SoC tree - was always repeated by me and SoC maintainers.
Just like gazillion other things probably was not documented... or even
if it was documented, it would be so deep among hundreds of other rules
nobody would find it. :)

> 
> This exchange suggests that I did it all wrong. Should I reject devicetree
> patches submitted as part of a driver patch series going forward ?

I propose: just ignore them. The SoC maintainer will pick them up.

> Should I not apply dts patches submitted as part of a patch series ?

No, please do not apply them.

> If so, it would help to have some documentation I can point to to explain
> the rationale to submitters (and myself). Also, in that case, how is the

Yes, it would. I can try to create something.

> synchronization between device tree patches and driver patches supposed
> to happen ?

There should not be synchronization. Just to remind: we talk about DTS
(so also DTSI and DTSO), thus everything being in arch/*/boot/dts/. We
do not talk about DT bindings, right? The bindings are obvious (and
documented): preferably go via driver subsystem, with fallback/special
cases via SoC tree and fallback to Rob.

The DTS must be independent from driver changes. If synchronization is
needed, it means it is not independent. It happens from time to time,
kind of expected exception, with proper justifications. In such case,
recommendation is to send DTS for the next kernel release, so after the
driver changes hit rc1.

> 
> FWIW, if dts changes are sent as separate series, I don't know how I would
> be able to review driver changes/submissions without being copied on the
> associated dts changes.

People are also encouraged to provide links between them. One lore link
is required: the DTS patchset, if sent in parallel, should have a link
to the thread with the bindings being reviewed on the list. Of course if
bindings are already accepted (in linux-next), then it's not necessary.
We all know how to use git grep.

Now about your specific question:

As a driver subsystem maintainer you are not expected, as a requirement,
to review DTS code. You can, you are welcomed, but don't you have
already too much stuff to review? Why would like to jump to DTS? If you
do, your help is appreciated, though. However think for a sec how would
it even work? Imagine we send new driver + bindings + DTS for OMAP in
one thread, so you see the DTS for your review. Now 2 months later I
send DTS for Qualcomm using that driver. You would never be Cc-ed on
this second submission. It wouldn't be even possible: get_maintainers.pl
would not print your email. Why would you be expected to be CCed on
first DTS to review and not on all others/further ones? This does not
make sense, really.

BTW, I am not saying here anything new. I was babbling about this every
second month since few years. :)

Best regards,
Krzysztof