Re: [PATCH RFC] wifi: wilc1000: fix reset line assert/deassert polarity

[Ajay.Kathat]

On 2/16/24 11:07, Kalle Valo wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>>>> So if I'm understanding the situation correctly Microchip's porting
>>>> guide[1] doesn't match with kernel.org documentation[2]? I'm not the
>>>> expert here but from my point of view the issue is clear: the code needs
>>>> to follow kernel.org documentation[2], not external documentation.
>>>
>>> My point of view would definitely be that drivers in the mainline kernel
>>> absolutely should respect the ABI defined in the dt-binding. What a vendor
>>> decides to do in their own tree I suppose is their problem, but I would
>>> advocate that vendor kernels would also respect the ABI from mainline.
>>>
>>> Looking a bit more closely at the porting guide, it contains other
>>> properties that are not present in the dt-binding - undocumented
>>> compatibles and a different enable gpio property for example.
>>> I guess it (and the vendor version of the driver) never got updated when
>>> wilc1000 supported landed in mainline?
>>>
>>>> I'll add devicetree list so hopefully people there can comment also,
>>>> full patch available in [3].
>>>>
>>>> Alexis, if there are no more comments I'm in favor submitting the revert
>>>> you mentioned.
>>>
>>> From a dt-bindings point of view, the aforementioned revert seems
>>> correct and would be
>>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Maybe an R-b is more suitable here, too used to acking trivial patches
>> that are dt related..
> 
> On the contrary, I think Acked-by is the right thing here and makes it
> easier for Alexis and me. Thanks!

Acked-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Agree, we can go ahead with this patch to make the code inline with
kernel.org documentation. I don't think any change is required in
dt-binding definition after this patch. However external documentation
update is needed as Conor has also pointed out,  I will be taking care
of it.

Regards,
Ajay