Hi Mark and Krzysztof, Thanks for your reply, On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 21:57, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 22/07/2022 20:43, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > ...with a fallback list required by the bindings so the driver actually > > > binds. Note that bindings are currently not in YAML format so there'd > > > be even less enforcement of that than normal, and as they're currently > > > written the bindings don't require fallback. > > > Yes, the bindings document should be rephrased but we were living like > > that for few years. :) > > The binding document as it stands only has one compatible, there's no > existing problem with it other than the YAML conversion. If we're > adding something new that requires a fallback we should be explicit > about that rather than have something that's actively misleading where > previously things were clear. I don't mind if we add the compatible to > the driver or document the requirement for the fallback but we should do > one of the two. is V2 good enough? adding the compatible to the driver and the document? Or should we use fallback? If fallback is choosen, can you explain how I should do it? Best regards, Tomer
