On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:10:33AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 10:46:46AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 03:33:15PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 14:13:09 +0100 > > > Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Extend dt-binding for BME680 gas sensor device. The device incorporates > > > > as well temperature, pressure and relative humidity sensors. > > > This description should make it clear it is moving from trivial-devices.yaml > > > > > > dt-bindings: iio: bosch,bme680: Move from trivial-bindings and add missing supplies. > > > > > > Then say a little more on why you are moving it. > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > There was an open question on the previous version about > > > setting the supplies as required (which I see you've removed). > > > My understanding previously was that it is fine to make that change > > > in a binding if it reflects supplies that are required to be enabled > > > for the device to function at all. If there were previously missing > > > that's a binding bug we should fix. > > > > > > I'd like a clarification from the DT binding maintainers on that. > > > Obviously doesn't work for other users of dt bindings but in > > > Linux this would be fine as they were already on for any board > > > that worked and the regulator framework will through us a fake > > > regulator for cases like this. > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241022182451.00007ac0@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > That was Rob's objection so I will leave it to him, but putting my two > > cents in for Linux it is not an ABI break because missing regulator > > supplies are substituted with dummy ones. Unless something changed... > > Shrug. I don't think we're entirely consistent on this. If we're saying > supplies are always required, then every device in trivial-devices.yaml > is wrong. Since Linux handles them missing, you can also argue that > supplies are never required. > > I'd prefer not to special case regulators as an exception I have to > remember. I have some rudimentary ABI checking I'm working on that > checks for things like new required properties. Though it wouldn't catch > this particular change given it moves the schema. > > Rob Hi Jonathan, According to Rob's answer, do you think that we can move on with the last 3 patches as they are or do you want some changes? Cheers, Vasilis
