[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc98d732-ea41-45bf-a269-f4f691243914@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 10:11:34 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: display: tegra: document EPP, ISP,
MPE and TSEC for Tegra114+
On 11/08/2025 10:01, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote:
>>> +
>>> + reg:
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + interrupts:
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + clocks:
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + clock-names:
>>> + items:
>>> + - const: tsec
>>
>> Drop -names properties if there is only 1.
>
> This is added to cover existing binding in tegra210 tree
Existing binding? In what tree? This is mainline, we work only on
mainline and that's a new binding, so you cannot use argument that there
is broken code using it. Otherwise what stops anyone to push broken code
and then claim binding has to look because "existing code has something
like that"?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists