Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 19:57:27 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>, avifishman70@gmail.com,
        tali.perry1@gmail.com, joel@jms.id.au, venture@google.com,
        yuenn@google.com, benjaminfair@google.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] spi: npcm-pspi: Add NPCM845 peripheral SPI support
Message-ID: <YtrzF9BFJrXfxiz0@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20220722114136.251415-1-tmaimon77@gmail.com>
 <20220722114136.251415-3-tmaimon77@gmail.com>
 <afae04e0-76a3-1bcb-5b47-9944fa9ab2c0@linaro.org>
 <YtrvyyMGm64hFG5j@sirena.org.uk>
 <0c8688d5-b0c1-8cc1-ec27-292acbb38dfc@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UbxSBqEr8U0AN/GQ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0c8688d5-b0c1-8cc1-ec27-292acbb38dfc@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk


--UbxSBqEr8U0AN/GQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/07/2022 20:43, Mark Brown wrote:

> > ...with a fallback list required by the bindings so the driver actually
> > binds.  Note that bindings are currently not in YAML format so there'd
> > be even less enforcement of that than normal, and as they're currently
> > written the bindings don't require fallback.

> Yes, the bindings document should be rephrased but we were living like
> that for few years. :)

The binding document as it stands only has one compatible, there's no
existing problem with it other than the YAML conversion.  If we're
adding something new that requires a fallback we should be explicit
about that rather than have something that's actively misleading where
previously things were clear.  I don't mind if we add the compatible to
the driver or document the requirement for the fallback but we should do
one of the two.

--UbxSBqEr8U0AN/GQ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmLa8xcACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CC6Af+Kw0oDGAT+xBaRBeKTXmSgfg/pO7Y8Mf9MVM+HhbN19e3qM65lfnixOKg
fcMyys82+nUBbEDFf77vFrXDJzaPNjsNdDBfczogsFMkJDhNO0bPwMs4Op1T444k
Bp/OYMF3fxgsrparA9XaVn3J4g25TZeNq9z3YaJ4eXtmLFbUybaLFF8KaN3byzLm
0aAcUtXMB4v7jaa+x6GBNhMQ2NkLUUEEGltmV78/l6w/PTCvjwGH6EpB69mmWFDM
dHxqz/Ac6Y/TiiR3ZgaHdbJBjOfOydiyINeMHyeGE5P6Xn5KCVvl41kIaq3g6rG7
sGK66BmAjWTb1mDHmmwM7wa+WbjHLQ==
=yVCU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--UbxSBqEr8U0AN/GQ--