On 10/12/2018 08:03 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> NAK. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the NAK. >>>> >>>> This NAK was NAK'd by other maintainer in the V2 RFC patchset >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/993171/ >>> >>> I confirm. LM3697 is a standalone device and not a cell of any >>> MFD device. >>> >>> Waiting for DT maintainer's ack. >> >> You all sort out what you want... I can't follow it all, and I'm not >> going to spend the time trying to figure out what is going on here. > > This is what I want: > >> As this is worded, changing the driver is a Linux problem and irrelevant >> to the binding. Now if you want to move documentation to a location that >> makes more sense, then fine. But structure patches that way and make it >> clear that from an binding ABI perspective, nothing is changing. > > ...but apparently I did not have enough authority to get it. > > (I'm ok with move, and it is possible that binding does need some > fixups besides the move; still it should be done as fixup not as a new > binding). There is a fundamental question - should the bindings be considered an ABI, even though there is no mainline "*.dts" implementation basing on these bindings? This patch fixes the issues of bindings in a way that would change the ABI, if only it existed. But it apparently doesn't exist in mainline. Unless a DT documentation itself constitutes an ABI. I'd like to have it clarified at this occasion, and that's why I kindly ask for DT maintainer's ack or NACK for this modification of bindings. For a reference we have a nice summary of the MFD driver and related bindings' flaws in [0] and [1]. [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/7/774 [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/11/984 -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
