On 1.12.2023 14:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 01/12/2023 13:30, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >>> What I said before: >>> "Again, third time (once from Bjorn, once from Dmitry), rephrase >>> property name and description to describe the hardware issue. I see >>> description improved, but not the property name. Again in the end of >>> description you say what Linux should do. Bindings do not describe Linux >>> OS." >>> >> >> You didn't answer my question: >> >> "I see a plenty of properties similar to this one instructing the OS to keep some >> resource ON to workaround hardware issues. So they are all wrong?" > > They are not the best, but it all depends on the individual case. > >> >> If you say they are wrong, why are they approved in the first place? > Because we don't have time to keep digging what the driver is doing and > what is claimed in DT. Some people don't even CC us on the driver. Not sure if I asked this before, but can this not be set in the config struct inside the driver? Konrad
