On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:09:58PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:35:24PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > > > I'd like to add something on the topic of non-Linux projects. In this > > case it's diverging DT bindings from U-boot: > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/823158/ > > > U-boot already has a set of devicetree binding additions: > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/tree/master/doc/device-tree-bindings > > > The patch in question wants to ab(use) the regulator-name property for > > driver instance binding. In my opinion this is not going to fly, as > > boards are free to define the names. This either sees no use other than > > as a dirty workaround for dts files that aren't following the PMIC > > regulator bindings (regulator node names should follow well defined, > > identifying names), or results in divergence of the DT files. > > One meta issue I'm seeing here is that the u-boot people appear to have > their own divergent copy of some of the binding documents. Putting on my U-Boot hat now, it's mostly unintentional and something in general (yes, the initial topic here is not such an example) we try and avoid, or use u-boot, as the prefix on as it's something that had been previously rejected or deemed inappropriate to be in the upstream version of the binding. But perhaps it's time to try and force the issue again, given what Rob and others have said in other parts of the thread. -- Tom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
