Re: [GIT PULL] Allwinner DT Changes for 7.2

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 10:18 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 09/06/2026 14:38, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:51 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09/06/2026 13:48, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:43 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 03:09:52AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >>>>> The following changes since commit 254f49634ee16a731174d2ae34bc50bd5f45e731:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   Linux 7.1-rc1 (2026-04-26 14:19:00 -0700)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sunxi/linux.git tags/sunxi-dt-for-7.2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 44cf19e41c769720750dbb8752aca75c247e565f:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   arm64: dts: allwinner: a523: add gpadc node (2026-05-25 05:02:58 +0800)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As mentioned in the tag, this pull request contains a change that should
> >>>>> be shared between the soc and clk trees. However since I don't have any
> >>>>> clk changes to send this cycle, I think it can just go through the soc
> >>>>> tree without any issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the clock driver change cannot be in the DTS branch. This should go
> >>>> via clock tree even if it is one change. And definitely not via DTS
> >>>> branch.
> >>>
> >>> It is a shared change, because it moves two symbols from the driver's
> >>> private header to the public DT binding header. I don't see how this
> >>> can go through just the clk tree when one of the subsequent patches
> >>> uses those new symbols.
> >>>
> >>> "clk: sunxi-ng: v3s: Export MBUS and DRAM clocks to the public header"
> >>> is needed by "ARM: dts: sun8i: v3s: Add mbus node to represent the
> >>> interconnect".
> >>>
> >>> The other way to go about this is to use raw numbers first, then
> >>> another patch in the next cycle to switch the numbers to actual
> >>> macros. IMHO not worth the churn and headache.
> >>
> >> You can have a duplicated define.
> >
> > I honestly did not know that it worked.
> >
> > However, splitting what is effectively one logical change (*move*
> > something) into two patches just to be able to merge them through two
> > separate trees still seems wrong to me.
>
> It is not really one logical change. Defining a new ABI (binding header
> define) is considered one change. Merging binding change into driver
> commit breaks rule of splitting bindings from implementation.
>
> Second rule is that DTS branch CANNOT take driver changes. So if you do
> not want to adhere to the above rule you still cannot combine it into
> DTS branch.

Very well. I will drop the two changes and send a revised pull request.

Paul, can you redo the clk changes as requested in the next cycle?


Thanks
ChenYu