On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:01:59PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi, > > > I have a question for you and Wolfram, we don’t use device trees and > > are not planning to use device trees; we only use ACPI tables. But I > > think when Khalil submitted the first version of the i2c-mlxbf.c > > driver, it was requested from him to add devicetree support. Do you > > know why? Is it possible to remove the device tree support and so this > > doc? or is devicetree support a requirement regardless of the actual > > implementation? > > The first version sent from Khalil to the public I2C mailing list already > had DT bindings [1]. I don't see a sign of someone of the public list > requesting DT bindings. Maybe it was company internal? > > Technically, there is no requirement to support DT, especially since you > have working ACPI. I don't know the process, though, of removing DT > support. You would basically need to be sure that no user made use of > the DT bindings introduced before. I don't know to what degree you can > assume that. There's the whole using DT bindings in ACPI bindings thing, but I have little interest (or time) in supporting that. Maybe that's what's happening here? I haven't looked. The whole concept is flawed IMO. It may work for simple cases of key/value device properties, but the ACPI model is quite different in how resources are described and managed. Rob
