On 11/04/2024 11:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 11/04/2024 12:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 11/04/2024 11:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 11/04/2024 12:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 11/04/2024 12:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 11/04/2024 10:52, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
This reverts commit 3e383dce513f426b7d79c0e6f8afe5d22a581f58.
The commit ae2a1f0f2cb5 ("dt-bindings: i2c: qcom-cci: Document sc8280xp compatible")
was correct apparently, it is required to describe the sc8280xp-cci
controller properly, as well it eliminates dtbs_check warnings.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir.zapolskiy@xxxxxxxxxx>
I am lost. Not on your patch, because it looks reasonable, but on entire
history.
Can anyone explain me why original commit was reverted?
https://lore.kernel.org/all/767bc246-a0a0-4dad-badc-81ed50573832@xxxxxxxxxx/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/#3195094
We can you sm8250-cci instead, so dropped the additional compat.
I am sorry, but that links point to cover letter and actually the same
thread as I linked. What does it prove?
And just to remind because you bring some discussions from driver: we
talk here *only* about bindings patch. Not driver.
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/cover/20231006120159.3413789-1-bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx/#3195327
Konrad pointed out we don't need a new compat because the sm8250 compat
string could be reused.
Where did he point that? I see only comment about driver, not bindings.
Please point me to his comment (and again, not patchwork which gives you
entire discussion and no one knows to which comment you refer, but lore
link which leads to specific one email where Konrad said it).
Konrad made a comment about the compat string in the driver, I looked at
the yaml and realised I could reuse the compat string.
Then asked for a reversion of the add.
I still think this is the right thing to do, no ?
---
bod
