| Message ID | 20240913-starqltechn_integration_upstream-v4-8-2d2efd5c5877@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | This is continued work on Samsung S9(SM-9600) starqltechn | expand |
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. > > Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com> > --- > include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- > 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Best regards, Krzysztof
пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > > Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com> > > --- > > include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- > > 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) > > Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD > bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) Indeed, my dts has no dependency on this patch. However, my dts has dependency on MAX77705, so AFAIU, I should send this patch separately, while leaving other drivers in same patchset, right?
On 18/09/2024 14:53, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: >>> Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- >>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) >> >> Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD >> bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) > > Indeed, my dts has no dependency on this patch. > However, my dts has dependency on MAX77705, so AFAIU, > I should send this patch separately, while leaving other drivers in same > patchset, right? How DTS could have dependency on MAX77705? It's a clear no go - broken patch. And something very weird, almost never happening for new hardware. Best regards, Krzysztof
чт, 19 сент. 2024 г. в 10:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: > > On 18/09/2024 14:53, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > > пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > >>> Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com> > >>> --- > >>> include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- > >>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) > >> > >> Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD > >> bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) > > > > Indeed, my dts has no dependency on this patch. > > However, my dts has dependency on MAX77705, so AFAIU, > > I should send this patch separately, while leaving other drivers in same > > patchset, right? > > How DTS could have dependency on MAX77705? It's a clear no go - broken > patch. And something very weird, almost never happening for new hardware. > Oh right, dts only depends on driver bindings, not driver code, so I can send dts patches with bindings in separate series, and per subsystem series for new driver code.
On 19/09/2024 10:40, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: > чт, 19 сент. 2024 г. в 10:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: >> >> On 18/09/2024 14:53, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: >>> пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 06:07:51PM +0300, Dzmitry Sankouski wrote: >>>>> Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Please split your patchset per subsystems. There is no dependency on MFD >>>> bits from your DTS... (if there is, this needs to be fixed anyway) >>> >>> Indeed, my dts has no dependency on this patch. >>> However, my dts has dependency on MAX77705, so AFAIU, >>> I should send this patch separately, while leaving other drivers in same >>> patchset, right? >> >> How DTS could have dependency on MAX77705? It's a clear no go - broken >> patch. And something very weird, almost never happening for new hardware. >> > Oh right, dts only depends on driver bindings, not driver code, so I > can send dts > patches with bindings in separate series, and per subsystem series for new > driver code. This is how you can organize patchsets: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231121-topic-sm8650-upstream-dt-v3-0-db9d0507ffd3@linaro.org/ Here is a brief description how to organize the patchset: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/CADrjBPq_0nUYRABKpskRF_dhHu+4K=duPVZX==0pr+cjSL_caQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#m2d9130a1342ab201ab49670fa6c858ee3724c83c Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h b/include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h index 20c5e02ed9da..c324d548619e 100644 --- a/include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h +++ b/include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h @@ -419,17 +419,6 @@ enum max77693_haptic_reg { #define MAX77693_CONFIG2_MEN 6 #define MAX77693_CONFIG2_HTYP 5 -enum max77693_irq_source { - LED_INT = 0, - TOPSYS_INT, - CHG_INT, - MUIC_INT1, - MUIC_INT2, - MUIC_INT3, - - MAX77693_IRQ_GROUP_NR, -}; - #define SRC_IRQ_CHARGER BIT(0) #define SRC_IRQ_TOP BIT(1) #define SRC_IRQ_FLASH BIT(2)
Remove `enum max77693_irq_source` declaration because unused. Signed-off-by: Dzmitry Sankouski <dsankouski@gmail.com> --- include/linux/mfd/max77693-private.h | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)