linux-kernel - "complete" dt-bindings for new SoC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <82c09e95-9856-42ec-b7a5-858fd06b888a@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 04:56:46 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org"
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
CC: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: "complete" dt-bindings for new SoC

Hi Devicetree Enthusiasts,

A few times now I've been told that things would have been easier had I 
submitted a complete binding in the first place. I find myself looking 
at another new SoC (a Realtek Switch with and integrated ARM64 core this 
time). I'm also waiting on hardware so I figured I could probably get 
the ball rolling on a devicetree and I wanted to do a better job of 
writing the binding.

Which brings be to the question. What does a "complete" binding mean to 
the devicetree maintainers? Are we talking about an overall binding for 
the chip that calls out peripherals (some which already exist) with a 
ref: ? Or a full binding in one document that covers everything in the 
chip? Does it need to be accompanied by an actual dts(i) for the chip?

Thanks,
Chris