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

[Jassi Brar]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 at 02:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Ok. I am going to do that. Are you going to enforce this practice for
all submissions in future?


> >>
> >> 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.
>
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/
  {
     i2c/socionext,synquacer-i2c.yaml
     interrupt-controller/socionext,synquacer-exiu.yaml
     net/socionext,synquacer-netsec.yaml
     spi/socionext,synquacer-spi.yaml
   }
and corresponding code in drivers/


> > 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.
>
Location of dts/dtsi in u-boot upstream is
     https://elixir.bootlin.com/u-boot/latest/source/arch/arm/dts
see { synquacer-sc2a11-caches.dtsi     synquacer-sc2a11.dtsi
synquacer-sc2a11-developerbox-u-boot.dtsi
synquacer-sc2a11-developerbox.dts }

regards.