Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer platform

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 17/06/2023 01:18, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 15:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/06/2023 22:06, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 11:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2023 18:23, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 05:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/06/2023 05:58, jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Socionext's DeveloperBox is based on the SC2A11B SoC (Synquacer).
>>>>>>> Specify bindings for the platform and boards based on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The
>>>>>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can remove it, but I see many mentions like "Fix bindings for"  "Add
>>>>> binding for" etc in the subject line.
>>>>
>>>> Can we fix them as well?
>>>>
>>> ??
>> What else I can say to such argument?
>>
> It was not an argument, I agreed to remove it. I just observed that
> the nit-pick was arbitrary.
> And frankly
>    "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add Synquacer"   is as misleading as
>    "dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer"   is improper.

"add Synquacer boards"
it is both precise and correct. No misleading.


> 
> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Binding without it's user is usually useless. Where is the user?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is required for SystemReady-2.0 certification.
>>>>
>>>> For what? If there is no user, it is not required for SR. We don't
>>>> document compatibles for something which does not exist in the projects.
>>>>
>>> The dts/dtsi for synquacer will be added later.
>>> I am sure you are aware that there are countless bindings without
>>> actual use in any dts/dtsi.
>>
>> Bindings without user (so no DTSI and no driver)? Just few, not countless.
>>
> I disagree. But I don't have time to write a script to find
> compatibles/enums and properties in yaml/txt files that are not in any
> dts/dtsi file.
>  By that logic synquacer's spi/netsec/i2c/exiu bindings and drivers in
> kernel are illegit too?

Don't know which one you talk about.

> 
> Also the user may not be in Linux, but we keep "os-agnostic" bindings in Linux.

I did not say anything about Linux here. Look:

"does not exist in the projects."

> The synquacer dts/dtsi are in u-boot upstream. SR testsuite looks up

Sure, can you point it? U-Boot upstream is a valid project. Just like
many other upstream ones.

> the underlying platform name and checks if the bindings are merged
> upstream.
> While I am not against also submitting dts/dtsi in linux, I don't
> think the binding should be held at ransom.
> 
>>> When exactly did it become mandatory to
>>> have dts/dtsi for the bindings to be merged upstream?
>>
>> It was always. We do not want/need to document downstream stuff or
>> anything  just because it is somewhere there.
>>
> I am not asking you to merge an obscure internal revision of some SoC.
> Synquacer is a public development platform and a "96board" already
> certified for SR-1.0.

Without any reference to any project using this, it looks like you are.
Sorry.

Best regards,
Krzysztof