On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 15:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > It was not an argument, I agreed to remove it. I just observed that the nit-pick was arbitrary. And frankly "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add Synquacer" is as misleading as "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer" is improper. > >>>> > >>>> 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. > I disagree. But I don't have time to write a script to find compatibles/enums and properties in yaml/txt files that are not in any dts/dtsi file. By that logic synquacer's spi/netsec/i2c/exiu bindings and drivers in kernel are illegit too? Also the user may not be in Linux, but we keep "os-agnostic" bindings in Linux. The synquacer dts/dtsi are in u-boot upstream. SR testsuite looks up the underlying platform name and checks if the bindings are merged upstream. While I am not against also submitting dts/dtsi in linux, I don't think the binding should be held at ransom. > > 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. > I am not asking you to merge an obscure internal revision of some SoC. Synquacer is a public development platform and a "96board" already certified for SR-1.0. thnx.
