On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 11:29:53AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 03/05/2022 08:51, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>> This should not be a reason why a property is or is not required. Either > >>>> this is required for device operation or not. If it is required, should > >>>> be in the bindings. Otherwise what are you going to do in the future? > >>>> Add a required property breaking the ABI? > >>> > >>> The problem is that there are no bindings for the reset controller > >>> (actually the reset controller feature of the system-controller) yet. > >>> Yeah, we can just add #reset-cells = <1> to the system-controller > >>> device node, but we cannot add the actual resets properties to the > >>> consumers, until the actual cell values are defined. > >> > >> Sounds like you should implement providers first. Or just live with the > >> warning as a reminder to implement the reset provider? > > > > I'd go for the latter. The upstream r9a06g032.dtsi is still under active > > development. Until very recently, the only device supported was the > > serial console. > > For clocks we use in such cases fixed-clock placeholders or empty > phandles. Maybe something like that would work here as well? IMO, we should move away from doing that for clocks. It's a guaranteed ABI break. Rob
