Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > So if I'm understanding the situation correctly Microchip's porting >> > guide[1] doesn't match with kernel.org documentation[2]? I'm not the >> > expert here but from my point of view the issue is clear: the code needs >> > to follow kernel.org documentation[2], not external documentation. >> >> My point of view would definitely be that drivers in the mainline kernel >> absolutely should respect the ABI defined in the dt-binding. What a vendor >> decides to do in their own tree I suppose is their problem, but I would >> advocate that vendor kernels would also respect the ABI from mainline. >> >> Looking a bit more closely at the porting guide, it contains other >> properties that are not present in the dt-binding - undocumented >> compatibles and a different enable gpio property for example. >> I guess it (and the vendor version of the driver) never got updated when >> wilc1000 supported landed in mainline? >> >> > I'll add devicetree list so hopefully people there can comment also, >> > full patch available in [3]. >> > >> > Alexis, if there are no more comments I'm in favor submitting the revert >> > you mentioned. >> >> From a dt-bindings point of view, the aforementioned revert seems >> correct and would be >> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Maybe an R-b is more suitable here, too used to acking trivial patches > that are dt related.. On the contrary, I think Acked-by is the right thing here and makes it easier for Alexis and me. Thanks! -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
