Quoting Doug Anderson (2022-06-14 15:41:38)
>
> slight nit that from reading the subject of this patch I'd expect that
> it was a no-op. Just a reorganization / cleanup. In fact, it actually
> is more than a no-op. It enforces restrictions that should probably
> have always been enforced. I think it'd be better if the subject was
> something like "tighten property requirements" or something like that.
Sure. It sort of got out of control but I didn't update the commit
text to explain that we're enforcing reg and interrupts for i2c/spi
devices.
>
> slight nit that think it would be easier to understand this bottom
> section if you made the "SPI" and "RPMSG" sections more symmetric to
> each other. I think it would be easy to just change the SPI one to say
> "not SPI" instead of explicitly listing "i2c" and "rpmsg".
I had done that earlier but now it has an 'else' condition after commit
f412fe11c1a9 ("mfd: dt-bindings: google,cros-ec: Reference Samsung SPI
bindings"), so this kept the diff smaller.
>
> In any case, this overall looks pretty nice to me. My two requests are
> both pretty small nits, so either with or without fixing them:
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
But if it gets a reviewed-by tag with more diff then I'll do it ;-)
