Re: [PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Enable the Keystone PCIe host and endpoint driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 23/02/2026 13:01, Aksh Garg wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/02/26 16:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/02/2026 12:17, Aksh Garg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/02/26 16:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2026 11:46, Aksh Garg wrote:
>>>>> Enable the PCIe Glue driver for Host and Endpoint mode of operation of
>>>>> the Designware PCIe controller in the Texas Instruments AM65 SoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aksh Garg <a-garg7@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 2 ++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> Why are you sending two separate patches one after another?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>> As both the patches does not depend on each other, can independently be
>>> reviewed, and address different SoCs with different PCIe controllers, I
>>> thought it would be better to send them as two separate patches.
>>
>> So twice more work for us? Why this cannot be one patch?
>>
> 
> The only commonality between the patches is that they both enable PCIe
> drivers. However, the patch for J721E PCIe driver only enables the
> controller for EP mode, as Host mode is already present. On the other
> hand, the patch for Keystone PCIe driver enables both Host and EP mode
> of operation. Also as I mentioned, they belong to different SoCs with
> different PCIe controllers, so I chose to keep them separate.
> 
> If I squash both the patches, the subject like: "Enable PCIe drivers for
> TI SoCs" would be too generic, as TI would have more SoCs in the future.

What's wrong with this subject? I see nothing too generic there.

> Hence, the squashed patch with this subject might mislead in future.
> 
> If you insist me squashing the patches, then would the following subject
> be acceptable: "Enable J721E and Keystone PCIe drivers" for the squashed
> patch?

I do insist. I insisted already.

> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof