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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 19/06/2023 21:17, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>> 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?

How many cases can you find that I did not enforce it? That I provided a
review and accepted other subject? It's nothing new...

> 
> 
>>>>
>>>> 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

There is a user. What do you want to prove with this one?

>      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


Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>

Best regards,
Krzysztof