Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jun 2023 08:27:17 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer platform | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
On 19/06/2023 21:17, Jassi Brar wrote: >>>>>> Can we fix them as well? >>>>>> >>>>> ?? >>>> What else I can say to such argument? >>>> >>> It was not an argument, I agreed to remove it. I just observed that >>> the nit-pick was arbitrary. >>> And frankly >>> "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add Synquacer" is as misleading as >>> "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer" is improper. >> >> "add Synquacer boards" >> it is both precise and correct. No misleading. >> > Ok. I am going to do that. Are you going to enforce this practice for > all submissions in future?
How many cases can you find that I did not enforce it? That I provided a review and accepted other subject? It's nothing new...
> > >>>> >>>> Bindings without user (so no DTSI and no driver)? Just few, not countless. >>>> >>> I disagree. But I don't have time to write a script to find >>> compatibles/enums and properties in yaml/txt files that are not in any >>> dts/dtsi file. >>> By that logic synquacer's spi/netsec/i2c/exiu bindings and drivers in >>> kernel are illegit too? >> >> Don't know which one you talk about. >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ > { > i2c/socionext,synquacer-i2c.yaml
There is a user. What do you want to prove with this one?
> interrupt-controller/socionext,synquacer-exiu.yaml > net/socionext,synquacer-netsec.yaml > spi/socionext,synquacer-spi.yaml > } > and corresponding code in drivers/ > > >>> The synquacer dts/dtsi are in u-boot upstream. SR testsuite looks up >> >> Sure, can you point it? U-Boot upstream is a valid project. Just like >> many other upstream ones. >> > Location of dts/dtsi in u-boot upstream is > https://elixir.bootlin.com/u-boot/latest/source/arch/arm/dts
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Best regards, Krzysztof
| |