On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 22/07/2022 20:43, Mark Brown wrote: > > ...with a fallback list required by the bindings so the driver actually > > binds. Note that bindings are currently not in YAML format so there'd > > be even less enforcement of that than normal, and as they're currently > > written the bindings don't require fallback. > Yes, the bindings document should be rephrased but we were living like > that for few years. :) The binding document as it stands only has one compatible, there's no existing problem with it other than the YAML conversion. If we're adding something new that requires a fallback we should be explicit about that rather than have something that's actively misleading where previously things were clear. I don't mind if we add the compatible to the driver or document the requirement for the fallback but we should do one of the two.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
