On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 01:11:41PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:53:58PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > 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? > > Sorry, there was a typo in the above. Of course not. Also, I now see "[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: media: Renesas R-Car IMR bindings". Thanks for working on this.
