On 17/12/2024 10:19, Biju Das wrote: >>>>>> Calling it a binding makes it immutable and gives us, DT >>>>>> maintainers, more work, so really no benefits at all. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess other DT maintainers will ack it, I prefer to reduce number of headers. >>>>> >>>>> DT describes hardware. The port names are alpha numeric on hardware manual. >>>> >>>> We talk about binding, not DT. >>> >>> Bu the definitions are part of bindings just like Commit "997daa8de64ccbb". >> >> You made them part of bindings, but this is invalid as argument. How is this anyhow related? How is >> "DT describes hardware" part of binding? >> >> You said "DT describes hardware", but we do not talk here about DT, do we? We talk about binding. > > OK. > >> I am not going to keep reading all the external references you keep bringing or discussing why someone >> else did something. This patch must be logical and correct on its own, not because someone else made >> something somewhere. > > OK. According to me this patch is correct. It is for DT user and it described clearly in commit message So you repeat first point which I objected in the first place. If this is for DT, then this is not a binding and does not deserve header. > > "RZ/V2H has ports P0-P9 and PA-PB. Add support for defining alpha-numerical > ports in DT using RZV2H_* macros." I read it, I objected to it. Best regards, Krzysztof
