On 06/05/2023 20.16, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2023 12:08:53 +0200 > Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 04/05/2023 09.28, Nuno Sá wrote: >>> Can anyone have a working device by specifying that dt parameter >>> on a non digital channel (or expect something from having that parameter set)? >>> Or the only effect is to actually have some functions misbehaving? >> >> The data sheet doesn't say that the DIN_SINK should have any effect for >> other functions, so I'm pretty sure it's only the latter: some functions >> misbehave. >> >>> On the driver side, if it's never right to have >>> these settings together, then the patch is valid since if someone has this, his >>> configuration is broken anyways (maybe that's also a valid point for the >>> bindings)... >> >> Yes, I do believe that it's a broken description (whether or not the >> bindings specify that), and drivers don't need to go out of their way to >> validate or fixup such brokenness. But in this particular case, there's >> really no extra burden on the driver to not put garbage in DIN_SINK when >> a not-digital-input function has been chosen (the patch is a two-liner >> with 'git show -w'). > > If we can tighten the DT binding to rule out something that should not be > set than that would be good. Tightening bindings is fine - we don't mind > validation of bindings failing on peoples DTs as long as we didn't 'break' > them actually working. Well, I'm afraid I don't have any idea how to spell that constraint in the yaml-language (help appreciated). And I assume a dt binding update would be a separate patch anyway, so could you please consider applying this patch? Thanks, Rasmus
