On 23/02/2024 01:24, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:24:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/02/2024 20:10, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/02/2024 07:42, Alex Soo wrote: >>>>> Add documentation and header file for JH8100 pinctrl driver. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> >>>> RFC? Why isn't this patch ready for review? >>> >>> The TL;DR is that Emil and I didn't want to apply the dts patches to >>> support a platform that hadn't actually been taped out yet. >>> For an SoC in that state, at least the bindings for, clock and pinctrl >>> could be subject to changes before tapeou. I think putting RFC on those >>> patches is a good idea, but of course the rationale should be mentioned. >> >> That would be useful information. We also could mark some bindings >> unstable and accept breaking ABI under certain conditions, like that it >> is early work without users for long time. > > The challenge with that is when do things get marked stable? No one has > any motivation to do that (unless users complain). For example, We have > a couple of platforms that have an unstable bindings statement that has > been there "forever". I see. Let's see what I can do for existing "unstable" platforms, but your argument makes sense - rarely people remember to un-unstable bindings and there aren't that many incentives for maintainer to do so. > > I would like a solution though. The only idea I have is passing > SystemReady cert, but that's an Arm thing. Best regards, Krzysztof
