Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: pinctrl: renesas: Add alpha-numerical port support for RZ/V2H

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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