Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski, > -----Original Message----- > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 17 December 2024 09:45 > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: renesas: Add alpha-numerical port support for RZ/V2H > > 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. Binding refers macros and macros defined in the header. Did I miss anything here? Or Do you want me to update bindings with RZV2H_GPIO* and RZG3E_GPIO* macros?? Cheers, Biju
