On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:24:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/02/2024 20:10, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 20/02/2024 07:42, Alex Soo wrote: > >>> Add documentation and header file for JH8100 pinctrl driver. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >> > >> > >> RFC? Why isn't this patch ready for review? > > > > The TL;DR is that Emil and I didn't want to apply the dts patches to > > support a platform that hadn't actually been taped out yet. > > For an SoC in that state, at least the bindings for, clock and pinctrl > > could be subject to changes before tapeou. I think putting RFC on those > > patches is a good idea, but of course the rationale should be mentioned. > > That would be useful information. We also could mark some bindings > unstable and accept breaking ABI under certain conditions, like that it > is early work without users for long time. I don't want to discourage a vendor that's clearly doing a good job of working on things before they've even taped things out, which is why I suggested sending clocks/pinctrl as RFC until things are finalised. I'm not sure what a good way to mention this in the bindings would be, particularly for clock/pinctrl definitions where things could change "behind the back" of a user - I'm thinking things like U-Boot here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
