On 24/04/2022 07:20, Ashish Mhetre wrote: >>> >>> New, added properties cannot be required. That's an ABI break. >>> >> This is handled in driver code to make sure driver works with old dts >> as well. So is this bindings change fine or shall I change it such that >> dt bindings check shall pass with older dts as well? >> Or as mentioned by Dmitry, I can update the commit message to reflect >> that ABI change is intended and driver is compatible with older DTBs as >> well. >> > Hi Rob, > Can you please confirm how shall I go in next version? > Is it fine for dt bindings check to fail if driver is compatible with > old as well as new dts? Or dt bindings check shall pass with old as > well as new dts? The driver works fine without reg-names and accepts old DTB, right? In such case, just mention this in commit msg, that the bindings require reg-names but backwards compatibility will be preserved in the driver. I think it's fine to alter bindings such way. Best regards, Krzysztof
