On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:59:04AM -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > On Sep 24 2022 10:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 24/09/2022 02:09, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > > On Sep 21 2022 20:43, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > >> Does it? I did not define this compatible in the driver, so it does > > >> not consume any clocks. > > > > > > The bindings should describe only those compatibles that the driver supports - > > > that is, both the driver and its bindings should be in sync. > > > > That's not entirely true. Bindings describe the hardware in the most > > complete way we can. Not the driver. Whether driver supports something > > or not, is not relevant here, except that we don't want to document > > non-existing things or stuff out of tree. > > Is this only applicable to compatibles or device tree properties in general? > > > > > > > Could you please update the driver with this compatible as well? Let's not > > > merge this change without that first. > > > > This could be even merged without change in the driver. However it's not > > the case here as driver already supports it, so your request is fulfilled. > > My concern is that if somebody specifies a compatible/device tree property that > the driver doesn't support, their expectations from adding that change will not > be met. In addition to having the bindings describe HW in full, I think the > driver should also be in sync with it for this reason. Which driver? From u-boot, *BSD, Linux, TF-A, ...? Rob
