Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-190229-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <455d12a8-fefe-4593-97a9-4cbdc81b61a7@baylibre.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 10:38:00 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Mediatek thermal sensor driver support for MT8186
 and MT8188
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
 Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Matthias Brugger
 <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
 Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240524-mtk-thermal-mt818x-dtsi-v5-0-56f8579820e7@baylibre.com>
 <238nnn48-0o7r-22q2-2rpo-s3n7n62pn2q4@onlyvoer.pbz>
 <ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Julien Panis <jpanis@baylibre.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/24/24 19:19, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:04:38PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2024, Julien Panis wrote:
>>
>>> [RFC] When PATCH 1/6 and 2/6 are squashed, checkpatch raises this WARNING:
>>> "DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch." That's why I
>>> split them in this v5. The problem is that the driver can't be compiled
>>> any more at PATCH 1/6. It needs PATCH 2/6 to be compiled. Should the
>>> checkpatch warning be ignored here ? Should I finally squash PATCH 1/6
>>> and PATCH 2/6 ?
>> IMHO it might be preferable to preserve successful compilation across
>> bisection than to appeal to checkpatch in this case.
> Or, patch 1 adds the new definitions, subsequent patches convert the
> users, and the last patch removes the old, now unused, definitions.
>

Thanks for this suggestion. I'll do something like that in next version.