On 23/03/2024 13:04, Lothar Rubusch wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 3:17 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:37:13AM +0000, Lothar Rubusch wrote: >>> Provide the optional spi-3wire in the example. >> >> That doesn't match the diff as you don't touch the example. But really, >> this should say why you need spi-3wire. > > I understand. The change does not add anything to the example. which > is definitely wrong. > Anyway I'm unsure about this change in particular. I know the spi-3wire > binding exists and can be implemented. Not all spi devices offer it. Not all > drivers implement it. My patch set tries to implement spi-3wire for the > particular accelerometer. > Do I need to add something here to dt-bindings documentation of the > adxl345? Or, as an optional spi feature, is it covered anyway by > documentation of optional spi bindings? So, should I refrase this particular > patch or may I drop it entirely? Could you please clarify. Whether you need to change bindings or not, dtbs_check will tell you. Just run dtbs_check on your DTS. It does not look like you tested the DTS against bindings. Please run `make dtbs_check W=1` (see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-schema.rst or https://www.linaro.org/blog/tips-and-tricks-for-validating-devicetree-sources-with-the-devicetree-schema/ for instructions). AFAIR, spi-3wire requires being explicitly mentioned in the device bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
