On 2/16/24 11:07, Kalle Valo wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > 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! Acked-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Agree, we can go ahead with this patch to make the code inline with kernel.org documentation. I don't think any change is required in dt-binding definition after this patch. However external documentation update is needed as Conor has also pointed out, I will be taking care of it. Regards, Ajay
