Message ID | 20240703025850.2172008-1-quic_tengfan@quicinc.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | arm64: qcom: dts: add QCS9100 support | expand |
On 03/07/2024 05:56, Tengfei Fan wrote: > Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the > QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. > While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the > QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it > mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. The same huge patchset, to huge number of recipients was sent twice. First, sorry, this is way too big. Second, it has way too many recipients, but this is partially a result of first point. Only partially because you put here dozen of totally unrelated emails. Sorry, that does not make even sense. See form letter at the end how this works. Third, sending it to everyone twice is a way to annoy them off twice... Fourth, Please split your work and do not cc dozen of unrelated folks. <form letter> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people and lists to CC (and consider --no-git-fallback argument). It might happen, that command when run on an older kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base your patches on recent Linux kernel. Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline), work on fork of kernel (don't, instead use mainline) or you ignore some maintainers (really don't). Just use b4 and everything should be fine, although remember about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new patches to the patchset. </form letter> Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/3/2024 12:45 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 03/07/2024 05:56, Tengfei Fan wrote: >> Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the >> QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. >> While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the >> QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it >> mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. > > The same huge patchset, to huge number of recipients was sent twice. > First, sorry, this is way too big. Second, it has way too many > recipients, but this is partially a result of first point. Only > partially because you put here dozen of totally unrelated emails. Sorry, > that does not make even sense. See form letter at the end how this > works. Third, sending it to everyone twice is a way to annoy them off > twice... Fourth, > > Please split your work and do not cc dozen of unrelated folks. I can split this patch series, there are two options for splitting: Option A: 1. Initial qcs9100.dtsi, qcs9100-pmics.dtsi, qcs9100-ride.dts renamed from sa8775p with existing compatible. 2. Each subsystem have single patch series to each limited driver maintainers. - About 15 series need to update related drivers, so each series will have 3 patches (bindings, drivers, the compatible names in subsystem-related parts of dtsi/dts). - About 14 series only need to add qcs9100 compatible in bindings., so each series will have 2 patches (bindings, the compatible names in subsystem-related parts of dtsi/dts). Option B: 1. Each subsystem have single patch series to each limited driver maintainers. Each patch series only update bindings, drivers, but no compatible names change in dts. - About 15 series in total and each series will have 2 patches (bindings, drivers). - About 14 series only need to add qcs9100 compatible in bindings, so each series will have 1 patches (bindings). 2. Squash current qcs9100.dtsi, qcs9100-pmics.dtsi, qcs9100-ride.dts with compatible changed to qcs9100 dt files. We tend to use Option A. Welcome to other ideas ideas for splitting the huge numbers of patches as well. Another, each splited series will also have cover letter contain the whole story like this cover letter. > > <form letter> > Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people > and lists to CC (and consider --no-git-fallback argument). It might > happen, that command when run on an older kernel, gives you outdated > entries. Therefore please be sure you base your patches on recent Linux > kernel. > > Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of > people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some > ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline), work on fork of kernel > (don't, instead use mainline) or you ignore some maintainers (really > don't). Just use b4 and everything should be fine, although remember > about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new patches to the patchset. > </form letter> > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Previously, I've been using scripts/get_maintainers.pl to obtain a list of recipients and manually removing duplicate email addresses(although I noticed you have two different email addresses, so I included both). I'll follow your advice and use b4 to submit a new version patch series to upstream, confident that similar issues won't arise again.
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:56:48AM GMT, Tengfei Fan wrote: > Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the > QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. > While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the > QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it > mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. Your patch series includes a second copy of your patches, wich have different Message-IDs: 20240703035735.2182165-1-quic_tengfan@quicinc.com vs 20240703025850.2172008-1-quic_tengfan@quicinc.com Please consider switching to the b4 tool or just checking what is being sent.
On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 04:20:29 +0000 patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@kernel.org wrote: > This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main) > by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: > Here is the summary with links: > - [01/47] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document QCS9100 SoC and RIDE board > (no matching commit) > - [02/47] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs9100: Introduce QCS9100 SoC dtsi > (no matching commit) > - [03/47] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs9100: Introduce QCS9100 PMIC dtsi > https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/df18948d331e This is some bug / false positive in the bot, to be clear. Commit df18948d331e is ("Merge branch 'device-memory-tcp'"). No idea how it got from that to DTS.
On 7/4/2024 2:49 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > This is some bug / false positive in the bot, to be clear. > Commit df18948d331e is ("Merge branch 'device-memory-tcp'"). > No idea how it got from that to DTS. This issue may be due to the patch series being too large. In the future, I plan to split the patch series by different subsystem, which should prevent similar issue.
On 7/3/2024 2:28 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:45:00AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 03/07/2024 05:56, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>> Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the >>> QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. >>> While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the >>> QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it >>> mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. >> >> The same huge patchset, to huge number of recipients was sent twice. >> First, sorry, this is way too big. Second, it has way too many >> recipients, but this is partially a result of first point. Only >> partially because you put here dozen of totally unrelated emails. Sorry, >> that does not make even sense. See form letter at the end how this >> works. Third, sending it to everyone twice is a way to annoy them off >> twice... Fourth, >> >> Please split your work and do not cc dozen of unrelated folks. > > One of the extra recipients is cos that of that patch I sent adding the > cache bindings to the cache entry, forgetting that that would CC the > riscv list on all cache bindings. I modified that patch to drop the riscv > list from the entry. > > Cheers, > Conor. Thank you, Conor!