Hi,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
> El lun, 13 feb 2023 a las 22:22, Sebastian Reichel
> (<sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> > [+cc DT binding people]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:38:24PM +0100, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
> > > > > static const struct of_device_id ls_poweroff_of_match[] = {
> > > > > + { .compatible = "buffalo,ls220d",
> > > > > + .data = &linkstation_power_off_cfg,
> > > > > + },
> > > > > + { .compatible = "buffalo,ls220de",
> > > > > + .data = &linkstation_power_off_cfg,
> > > > > + },
> > > > > { .compatible = "buffalo,ls421d",
> > > > > .data = &linkstation_power_off_cfg,
> > > > > },
> > > >
> > > > Where is the patch adding these compatibles to the DT binding
> > > > documentation?
> > >
> > > There is no DT binding at all. So no documentation.
> >
> > You are referencing a compatible, so there is supposed to be
> > a DT binding for it. Note, that you also need DT bindings for
> > board level compatible values. See for example:
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/fsl.yaml
>
> Since the driver uses the root compatible string, I don't see any
> binding to document at least for the driver itself. Nor I don't see
> where a reference for this driver should be put if I documented the
> board compatible strings.
You should document the board compatible string for the board
(ignoring this driver). Actually that should have happened
before the board DT has been merged in the first place. Note,
that the examples I provided above are for boards.
Since you are only referencing the root compatible string, we
are good to go afterwards from DT perspective.
-- Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
