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

[Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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