On 22/11/2023 09:33, Jyan Chou [周芷安] wrote: >>>> + clocks = <&cc 22>, <&cc 26>, <&cc 121>, <&cc 122>; >>>> + clock-names = "biu", "ciu", "vp0", "vp1"; >>> >>> Where is the DTS implementing this binding? >>> >>>> I said it once: >>> >>>>> I asked you to test the bindings. This also means that you must test >>>>> your DTS against bindings. Your bindings, DTS and driver do not >>>>> match, therefore let's be a bit more clear: >>>>> >>>>> NAK, till you upstream your DTS. >>> >>>> I still do not see DTS anywhere. Please link it. >>> >>> Sorry for asking. Which dts do we need to link it? The device tree we use for our SOC? >>> >>> or realtek,rtd-dw-cqe-emmc.example.dts? Thanks. > >> The patch adding this device node to any upstream DTS. I am not speaking about example, but about upstream DTS using this MMC. > >> As I wrote last time, I don't believe you test bindings and DTS and I had proofs of that. Therefore I expect you to upstream DTS of your product. > > Sorry for explaining, since our DTS is still trying to upstream, but not accepted by upstream yet, Please wrap your replies to match mailing list etiquette. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/4a462b2e-380a-9fd1-2e84-783cc457e8c2@xxxxxxxxxx/T/ Last submission was half a year ago. That submission was not tested either, so neither are your bindings nor DTS tested. > > could I provide the dts we local used now for you first to compare with bindings? I am sorry for making this request. I don't believe you are testing these, so the answer is not. Please send your SoC for upstreaming with MMC nodes included or as follow up. Best regards, Krzysztof
