[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: sunxi: Export PLL_VIDEO_2X and PLL_MIPI

[Dragan Simic]

Hello Andre,

On 2024-12-18 02:38, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 23:02:43 +0100
> Dragan Simic <dsimic at manjaro.org> wrote:
>> On 2024-12-17 22:15, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:00:45 -0800
>> > Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 09:34:57PM -0800, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
>> >> > > These will be used to explicitly select TCON0 clock parent in dts
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Fixes: ca1170b69968 ("clk: sunxi-ng: a64: force select PLL_MIPI in TCON0 mux")
>> >> > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul at gmail.com>
>> >> > > ---
>> >> > >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.h      | 2 --
>> >> > >  include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a64-ccu.h | 2 +
>> >>
>> >> > You cannot combine these changes.
>> >>
>> >> The patch basically moves defines out from ccu-sun50i-a64.h to
>> >> sun50i-a64-ccu.h. How do I split the change without introducing
>> >> compilation failure?
>> >
>> > You can just have the binding part first, adding the (same) definition
>> > to the binding headers. As long as the #define's are not conflicting,
>> > this is fine.
>> > Then remove the now redundant definitions in the kernel headers, with a
>> > subsequent patch.
>> 
>> Yes, that would be a way to make it formally correct, but also much
>> less readable and understandable later, as part of the source code
>> repository.  FWIW, I find this to be an example of the form being
>> more important than the actual function.
> 
> Not sure I understand your last sentence, exactly,

Ah, sorry, I also saw the need to expand that sentence a bit, but only
after I had already sent my message. :/

> but what Krzysztof pointed out is that one part (the header change in
> include/dt-bindings) is a DT binding patch, so part of a spec, if you
> like, the other is Linux *code*. There is the DT rebasing repo, which
> cherry-picks DT patches, so they form a separate history there, and
> Linux code has no place in there. U-Boot for instance pull this
> repo now on a regular basis. So keeping those things strictly separate
> is really important here.

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation and for reminding me about
the DT rebasing repository. [*]  I forgot about it for a moment, despite
being active in U-Boot development when the repository was introduced,
so yes, you're right that we're now in need to keep the bindings and the
kernel code separate in patches.

However, I can't stop myself from noticing that the way Krzysztof 
replied
left a lot to be desired when it comes to friendliness in general.  Such
an approach is probably what contributed to me forgetting about the DT
rebasing repository for a moment.

[*] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/devicetree/devicetree-rebasing.git/

>> >> > Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl and fix reported warnings. Then please
>> >> > run 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' and (probably) fix more warnings.
>> >> > Some warnings can be ignored, especially from --strict run, but the code
>> >> > here looks like it needs a fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning
>> >> > is not clear.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it is not clear what do you want me to do, assuming the previous
>> >> similar change to sun50i-a64-ccu.h did essentially the same, see
>> >> 71b597ef5d46a326fb0d5cbfc1c6ff1d73cdc7f9