On 29/09/2022 14:21, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 29/09/2022 14:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 29/09/2022 13:59, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>>> That's not really an answer... Bindings are correct because they are >>>> correct? What is exactly correct in the bindings? How they reflect the >>>> HW in a proper way, while DTS does not? >>>> >>>> Or let's focus on actual hardware - what are the properties of the >>>> hardware which indicate that DTS is wrong? >>> >>> The actual PMIC is an PM8018 >> >> And DTS is saying PMIC is PM8018, isn't it? I see clearly in DTS: >> qcom,pm8018 >> qcom,pm8018-rtc >> qcom,pm8018-pwrkey >> qcom,pm8018-gpio > > And this is why I pushed the removal of qcom,pm8921* fallback compatibles, > except for qcom,pm8018-pwrkey because I didn't managed to get it documented at the time. This does not explain at all why you wanted to remove any other compatibles. There is no connection, relation between these. We are making circles and discussion takes too much. I asked to bring the arguments about hardware that point devices are not compatible. You just said "PMIC is an PM8018", and that's it. Nothing more, nothing about hardware. Based on that you want to remove compatibility. This is not valid argument. It's unrelated. You could as well say "The actual PMIC is Qualcomm PMIC" and you would be right. Still not an argument. Based on lack of arguments in this entire discussion, the patch itself is not correct. Use the approach I wrote some time ago and quoted one more time. Best regards, Krzysztof
