Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-19857-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 16:39:43 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>,
	Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: spi: add spi-rx-bus-channels
 peripheral property
Message-ID: <0a774bc6-3bf9-4b5f-92e0-8bd673e71a33@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20231215-ad7380-mainline-v3-0-7a11ebf642b9@baylibre.com>
 <20231215-ad7380-mainline-v3-1-7a11ebf642b9@baylibre.com>
 <20240107164356.3e8df266@jic23-huawei>
 <f431e418-0b7c-4362-be26-9d2f03e0de07@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAMknhBE7eUMzcD0bdymrhL2Lw3FubB3aHDWmJFD7YnaGNYmQ9w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u+JU4o7NHBmCIXTJ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMknhBE7eUMzcD0bdymrhL2Lw3FubB3aHDWmJFD7YnaGNYmQ9w@mail.gmail.com>


--u+JU4o7NHBmCIXTJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 05:02:56PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 3:27=E2=80=AFPM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wr=
ote:

> > This makes no sense to me without a corresponding change in the SPI core
> > and possibly controller support, though I guess you could do data
> > manging to rewrite from a normal parallel SPI to this for a pure
> > software implementation.  I also see nothing in the driver that even
> > attempts to parse this so I can't see how it could possibly work.

> We currently don't have a controller that supports this. This is just
> an attempt to make a complete binding for a peripheral according to
> [2] which says:

=2E..

> So, will DT maintainers accept an incomplete binding for the
> peripheral? Or will you reconsider this without SPI core support if I
> can explain it better? It doesn't seem like a reasonable request to
> expect us to spend time developing software that we don't need at this
> time just to get a complete DT binding accepted for a feature that
> isn't being used.

I don't think it's sensible to try to make a binding for this without
having actually tried to put a system together that uses it and made
sure that everything is joined up properly, the thing about complete
bindings is more for things that are handle turning than for things that
are substantial new features in subsystems.

--u+JU4o7NHBmCIXTJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

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

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmWcJU4ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9Akcwf+LnM/YReIz8ea8jNfDh/aUjd3WeAf793LWvZngTl6tK5wbq6MoHG+hGrj
uwKfEGuTBsS/n5bLvUK6iFrGu3/WYS+UbhCG4degznRAbjZid3OjNq0v8zMNtFg7
3ma1b6WIisCoxPs4LaL8WpMP6hznUxJJZFgCoo1+MxuieAk9G1PkLVFg0bP9HHgn
K5Gig5w9SGcZcTEklHMuz3BxQ0gWXZ45j4aFJ0UgRWONWp5OPP3gfo5DSsLzQUX+
pQdqI1dhcZgVbFx59jgKiWOSz/HI5MqdS8922kDyZefGRp5q1K6XvtFyIQqy7mPi
brGA99MHSpYjAYbRD6U7d2mrfMTaXg==
=/gEc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--u+JU4o7NHBmCIXTJ--