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;
Message-ID: <98da9a32-9771-1002-f323-909e8b49a536@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:51:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dt-bindings: wm8753: Convert to dtschema
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
To:     Saalim Quadri <danascape@gmail.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, broonie@kernel.org,
        daniel.baluta@nxp.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.cirrus.com,
        robh+dt@kernel.org
References: <5d629ff3-c5ae-bd00-e70d-8c0d58365ce3@linaro.org>
 <20230415201246.1200683-1-danascape@gmail.com>
 <92d0f4c7-ed53-5d84-3955-08d1ab8bbd98@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <92d0f4c7-ed53-5d84-3955-08d1ab8bbd98@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 16/04/2023 09:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/04/2023 22:12, Saalim Quadri wrote:
>>> You choose unusual bindings to convert to DT schema. It is fine but
>>> honestly, less useful, with limited impact. This is an old, 12 year old
>>> binding without users. Maybe it would be even removed by now...
>>> I suggest converting ones which have a real impact - have users in DTS.
>>> Otherwise you will be putting quite a lot of effort for no real gains...
>>> because what is the difference between this binding being TXT and DT schema?
>>
>> I am converting these bindings as part of my GSoC project where I need to convert
>> as many files as possible during the given tenure, I am slowly trying to read files
>> in other subsystems too and will push patches for other subsystems too.
>> Is it fine?
> 
> In general it is fine. I wonder if we can change the goal of GSoC? I am
> surprised that such goal was chosen in the first place. Converting old,
> unused bindings to DT schema is okay, but it would be much better to do
> this for the bindings which are actually used.
> 
> Because I still wonder - what is the difference between this binding
> being TXT and DT schema?

BTW,

If you want to find used bindings and tasks to do, check Rob's bot output:

https://gitlab.com/robherring/linux-dt/-/jobs/4118960859
https://gitlab.com/robherring/linux-dt/-/jobs/4118960858

I pointed to these jobs two months ago when Daniel was looking for some
feedback.

Best regards,
Krzysztof