On 16/06/2023 22:06, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 11:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 16/06/2023 18:23, Jassi Brar wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 05:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2023 05:58, jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Socionext's DeveloperBox is based on the SC2A11B SoC (Synquacer). >>>>> Specify bindings for the platform and boards based on that. >>>> >>>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The >>>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. >>>> >>> I can remove it, but I see many mentions like "Fix bindings for" "Add >>> binding for" etc in the subject line. >> >> Can we fix them as well? >> > ?? What else I can say to such argument? > > >>> >>>> >>>> Binding without it's user is usually useless. Where is the user? >>>> >>> It is required for SystemReady-2.0 certification. >> >> For what? If there is no user, it is not required for SR. We don't >> document compatibles for something which does not exist in the projects. >> > The dts/dtsi for synquacer will be added later. > I am sure you are aware that there are countless bindings without > actual use in any dts/dtsi. Bindings without user (so no DTSI and no driver)? Just few, not countless. > When exactly did it become mandatory to > have dts/dtsi for the bindings to be merged upstream? It was always. We do not want/need to document downstream stuff or anything just because it is somewhere there. Best regards, Krzysztof
