[PATCH v2 5/6] dt-bindings: clock: drop NUM_CLOCKS define for EN7581

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:28:36PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 01/04/2025 18:40, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 05:27:30PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2025 16:44, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 27/03/2025 15:50, Christian Marangi wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 14/03/2025 19:59, Christian Marangi wrote:
> >>>>>>> Drop NUM_CLOCKS define for EN7581 dts/upstream/src/include. This is not a binding and
> >>>>>>> should not be placed here. Value is derived internally in the user
> >>>>>>> driver.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>
> >>>>>> Please drop my Ack. I have never acked such patch for uboot. If I did,
> >>>>>> it was by mistake - probably you CC-ed me for some reason.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some explaination, uboot introduced the concept of upstream where they
> >>>>> "import" linux patch for dts and dt-bindings.
> >>>>
> >>>> I expected OF_UPSTREAM to be taking the sources, not patches.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This and the other patch are the exact upstream patch with only the path
> >>>>> changed so I keep all the patch commit message with tags and added the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ upstream commit ] thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hope Tom can better suggest how this should be done. You were CC
> >>>>> probably because the git send-email included you as present in the
> >>>>> different tags.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, Ack is still not valid because I did not Ack exactly that change.
> >>>> It does not matter for the ack, but for Reviewed-by it would matter,
> >>>> because it is a statement (of oversight...). I cannot control what you
> >>>> put into patches taken out of kernel, but at least do not Cc me on that.
> >>>
> >>> In specifics, yes, we should update doc/develop/devicetree/control.rst
> >>> and maybe doc/develop/sending_patches.rst to use --suppress-cc=all for
> >>> dts/upstream.
> >>>
> >>> But in general, what do you expect people to be doing with content from
> >>> devicetree-rebasing? We're doing some direct cherry-picks in between
> >>> merging of the tags. I think it would be weird to be dropping the tags
> >>> and un-attributing peoples work.
> >>
> >>
> >> I rather expected something like how kernel is importing dtc. You just
> >> list the commits you get. If you want the full git history, then I would
> >> expect simple git submodule. In both cases there will be no such patches
> >> on the lists.
> >>
> >> For the Ack it does not matter, but I would feel uncomfortable if people
> >> were sending stripped and modified patches with my Rb tag.
> > 
> > I guess I'm confused. Looking at
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20250314185941.27834-6-ansuelsmth@gmail.com/
> > we're doing the normal thing of havig "[ upstream commit <sha>]" after
> > the imported log. When I merge the subtree and tag it indeed gives what
> > you're expecting too.
> 
> When you merge subtree, the patch is not modified and it lives in
> separate repo. No one sends them over lists, no one modifies them.
> Unlike here (even if modification did not happen, person was touching it
> so how can anyone be sure? That's not a scripted process).

We merge the subtree on tags, and people cherry-pick commits in between
tags when needed. This is a case of the latter, which is why it says "[
upstream commit <sha> ]" in the commit message, which is the usual case.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250401/971984c5/attachment.sig>