On 19/06/2023 21:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> "add Synquacer boards"
>> it is both precise and correct. No misleading.
>>
> Ok. I am going to do that. Are you going to enforce this practice for
> all submissions in future?
How many cases can you find that I did not enforce it? That I provided a
review and accepted other subject? It's nothing new...
>
>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Don't know which one you talk about.
>>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
> {
> i2c/socionext,synquacer-i2c.yaml
There is a user. What do you want to prove with this one?
> interrupt-controller/socionext,synquacer-exiu.yaml
> net/socionext,synquacer-netsec.yaml
> spi/socionext,synquacer-spi.yaml
> }
> and corresponding code in drivers/
>
>
>>> The synquacer dts/dtsi are in u-boot upstream. SR testsuite looks up
>>
>> Sure, can you point it? U-Boot upstream is a valid project. Just like
>> many other upstream ones.
>>
> Location of dts/dtsi in u-boot upstream is
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/u-boot/latest/source/arch/arm/dts
Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
