On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:07:33PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:
>
> On 16/05/22 22:30, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:
> > > 'liteon' is the correct vendor prefix for devices released by
> > > LITE-ON Technology Corp. But one of the released device which uses
> > > ltr216a light sensor exposes the vendor prefix name as 'ltr' through
> > > ACPI.
> > ACPI? NAK.
> >
> > There are no cases of 'ltr' for DT, so fix ACPI.
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Yes, we understand there are no cases of 'ltr', but we have released devices
> which uses this string for probing the ltrf216a light sensor driver ( x86
> with DT )
That's not what your commit message says.
Even if this is DT based, given an undocumented vendor string is used,
it seems doubtful the rest of the binding would match upstream. What
about the rest of the DTB? Got a pointer to it or want to publish it?
> If we don't document this in vendor-prefixes.yaml, then the following
> warning
> is generated.
>
> WARNING: DT compatible string vendor "ltr" appears un-documented -- check
> ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml 364: FILE:
> drivers/iio/light/ltrf216a.c:313: + { .compatible = "ltr,ltrf216a" },
>
>
> Can you suggest us what would be the right way to fix this warning if not
> documenting
> in vendor-prefixes.yaml?
Fix the DT. We don't accept bindings simply because they are already
used in the field. If this was the only issue, it would be fine, but I
suspect it's the tip of the iceberg.
Rob
