On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:27 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > I'm not changing upstream DTS. At most, the documentation should mention something. > 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). > No, I didn't. dtbs_check did not work right out of the box, but it sounds great and I will figure out. Currently my setup is a bit customized. I compile the modules out of tree, dockerized with several DTBOs. I use an automized setup to verify spi, spi-3wire and i2c probing still works on the hardware. It is tested at least somehow. > AFAIR, spi-3wire requires being explicitly mentioned in the device bindings. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >