Hi Guenter, On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 23:10, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/4/23 04:36, Naresh Solanki wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > [ ... ] > >> > >> No, we cannot, because we asked you to fix things there. Your entire > >> explanation about compatible and driver is not related to the comment > >> you received: bindings should be complete. You argue that bindings do > >> not have to be complete, because of something with driver. This is not > >> related. Bindings are not for driver. > > > > I understand that complete bindings are important, but as the driver is already merged and functional, my immediate goal is to enable its use on my machine. I will work on a separate patch to include the interrupts in both binding & driver. > > > > As a follow-up, since it came up in a separate context: > > Bindings and driver are independent of each other. _Bindings_ > are supposed to be complete. However, the existence of a property > in the bindings description does not have to be reflected in > the driver. > > FWIW, you _could_ have added the device to the list of trivial > devices. The only really mandatory property is vdd, and every > chip has that. All other properties are really about configuration > and/or fan properties, and I don't even know how to describe fan > properties (such as pulses per revolution, pwm parameters, > fan speed limits, the relationship between pwm outputs > and fan inputs, the relationship between fan speed input > and pwm output, or fan spin-up requirements) in devicetree. Thanks for the inputs, Will work on it & keep you posted. Regards, Naresh > > Guenter >
