Hi Laurent,
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:44 AM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:43:35AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> > On jue 14-05-2020 18:22:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > If we want to be more strict and require the definition of all the
> > > > supplies, there will be many more DTs changes in the series, and I'm not
> > > > sure I'll be able to do that in a reasonable amount of time. I'm looking
> > > > at them and it's not always clear which regulators to use or if they are
> > > > even defined.
> > >
> > > We can decouple the two though (I think). The bindings should reflect
> > > what we consider right, and the dts files could be fixed on top.
> >
> > Do you have a suggestion on how to do this? If we decouple the two
> > tasks most of the work would be searching for DTs to fix and finding a
> > way to fix each one of them, and unless I do this _before_ the binding
> > conversion I'll get a lot of dtbs_check errors.
>
> Rob should answer this question as it will be his decision, but I've
> personally never considered non-compliant DT sources to be an obstacle
> to bindings conversion to YAML. The DT sources should be fixed, but I
> don't see it as a prerequisite (although it's a good practice).
I do my best to avoid introducing regressions when the binding conversions
go upstream.
FTR, hence patches 1-3 are already in v5.7-rc7.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
