On 21/03/2024 17:21, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 3/19/24 13:55, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:48:06AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: >>> On 3/18/24 11:40, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:08:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: >>>>> On 3/17/24 11:10, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Additionally, should >>>>>> they fall back to t1023-sfp? I see that there's already some dts files >>>>>> with these compatibles in them but seemingly no driver support as there >>>>>> is for the t1023-sfp. >>>>> >>>>> I checked the reference manuals for these processors, and all of them use TA 2.0. >>>> >>>> Sounds like a fallback is suitable then, although that will require >>>> updating the various dts files. >>> >>> Yes, a fallback (like what is done for the T-series) would be suitable, >>> but given that these devicetrees have been in-tree for eight years I >>> think it would be preferable to support the existing bindings for >>> compatibility purposes. >> >> Just cos stuff snuck into the tree in dts files doesn't make it right >> though, I'd rather the bindings were done correctly. I don't care if you >> want to support all of the compatibles in the driver so that it works >> with the existing devicetrees though, as long as you mention the >> rationale in the commit message. > > It doesn't really matter what the schema has as long as the driver supports > existing device trees. We do not talk about driver now but bindings. You add new compatibles on a basis that they were already used. This cannot bypass regular review comments, so if during regular review process we would require fallbacks, then you are expected to listen to review also when documenting existing compatibles. Otherwise everyone would prefer to snuck in incorrect code and later document it "it was there!". Best regards, Krzysztof
