On 01/09/2025 06:15, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't understand why you combine DTS patch into UFS patchset. This >>>> creates impression of dependent work, which would be a trouble for merging. >>>> >>> >>> What trouble? Even if the DTS depends on the driver/bindings change, can't it >>> still go through a different tree for the same cycle? It happened previously as >> >> It all depends on sort of dependency. >> >>> well, unless the rule changed now. >> >> No, the point is that there is absolutely nothing relevant between the >> DTS and drivers here. Combining unrelated patches, completely different >> ones, targeting different subsystems into one patchset was always a >> mistake. This makes only life of maintainers more difficult, for no gain. >> > > Ok. Since patch 2 is just a refactoring, it should not be required for enabling > MCQ. But it is not clear if that is the case. > > @Ram/Nitin: Please confirm if MCQ can be enabled without patch 2. If yes, then > post the DTS separately, otherwise, you need to rewrite the commit message of > patch 2 to state it explicitly. Dependency of DTS on driver would be another issue and in any case must be clearly documented, not implicit via patch order. Best regards, Krzysztof
