Hi Mark, On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:36:01PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:15:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> 3. When updating DT bindings for new SoCs, we usually add "No driver >> >> update is needed" to the patch description to clarify. Unfortunately >> >> that was missed here. > >> > That's basically the same good practice thing, it's just documenting >> > what you're trying to do here with not putting things in code but >> > writing things in changelogs doesn't make them so! > >> My opinion that good practice is to document the per-driver supported >> hardware by explicitly listing the per-SoC compat strings in the DT >> binding document. > >> Then exactly which compat strings the driver matches on is really part >> of the software implementation and it will most likely vary over time. > >> So my view is that only updating the DT binding document should be >> enough in most cases when fall-back compat strings are used. I guess >> other people see it differently? > >> Is it too much detail to let the MAINTAINERS file point out both >> driver files and the DT binding files? > > It's supposed to do that already. All I'm saying here is that the patch > doesn't seem like something that needs actively reverting since it's a > perfectly valid and even potentially useful change to make. Thanks for clarifying the inclusion of DT bindings in the MAINTAINER file. To escape any sort of conflict I will happily let you and Geert discuss what is potentially useful or not! =) Nevertheless I agree that reverting this rather harmless change seems a bit overly aggressive. Cheers, / magnus
