[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtrzF9BFJrXfxiz0@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 19:57:27 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>, avifishman70@...il.com,
tali.perry1@...il.com, joel@....id.au, venture@...gle.com,
yuenn@...gle.com, benjaminfair@...gle.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] spi: npcm-pspi: Add NPCM845 peripheral SPI support
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/07/2022 20:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> > ...with a fallback list required by the bindings so the driver actually
> > binds. Note that bindings are currently not in YAML format so there'd
> > be even less enforcement of that than normal, and as they're currently
> > written the bindings don't require fallback.
> Yes, the bindings document should be rephrased but we were living like
> that for few years. :)
The binding document as it stands only has one compatible, there's no
existing problem with it other than the YAML conversion. If we're
adding something new that requires a fallback we should be explicit
about that rather than have something that's actively misleading where
previously things were clear. I don't mind if we add the compatible to
the driver or document the requirement for the fallback but we should do
one of the two.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists