Hello! On 03/25/2019 02:03 PM, Simon Horman wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:49 PM Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Remove undocumented IMR-LX4 device nodes >>>>>> >>>>>> [PATCH/RFC 01/02] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7795: Remove IMR-LX4 device nodes >>>>>> [PATCH/RFC 02/02] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7796: Remove IMR-LX4 device nodes >>>>>> >>>>>> These patches take the easy way out and simply remove the undocumented >>>>>> IMR-LX4 device nodes from the upstream tree. Good or bad, let me know! >>>>>> >>>>>> So perhaps this is a bit overly aggressive but since the DT bindings seem >>>>>> undocumented and no driver exists in upstream my gut feeling says these DT >>>>>> nodes were part of an upstreaming attempt that got suspended half-way through. >>>>>> >>>>>> In case DT binding documentation is in-flight and queued up somewhere >>>>>> (ideally together with a driver) then feel free to ignore this series. >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of removing nodes we could also document the DT bindings for the >>>>>> IMR-LX4 devices. It would also make sense to add device nodes to other >>>>>> more recent SoCs than just H3 and M3-W. But blindly adding more DT nodes >>>>>> with a DT binding but without a driver seems a bit suboptimal compared to >>>>>> testing against an actual driver. >>>>> >>>>> [PATCH v5] media: platform: Renesas IMR driver >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/20170309200818.786255823@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Thanks, but that seems to be from 2017! =) >>> >>> I dropped the ball there, as I was tasked with upstreaming V3x support... >>> The last thing done about the IMR driver was talking to Hans in Prague in >>> 2017. I'm planning to return to the driver after I'm done with the >>> HyperFlash driver. >> >> Hi Sergei, >> >> I appreciate that we are not always in control of our own priorities, >> indeed I sympathise with that predicament. However, we shouldn't really >> be in a situation where DT is making use of undocumented bindings. >> >> I would like to ask for the bindings to be documented in the upstream >> kernel in the near future. And if that is not possible I believe we >> should consider temporarily removing their use in DT in the upstream kernel. > > Hi Sergei, > > about two months have passed since Magnus posted this series. Time flies... Dealing w/ the flash drivers turned into unending nightmare. :-( > Do you have a timeline to address the problems? I'm looking into posting the bindings separately right now. The patch should be ready today or tomorrow. > If so I believe> that the way forward should be to apply this series. Hm, not sure I understood you correctly. You're going to remove the device nodes even if I have a timeline? [...] MBR, Sergei
