Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-77569-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:24:43 -0700
From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@starfivetech.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
	Hal Feng <hal.feng@starfivetech.com>,
	Ley Foon Tan <leyfoon.tan@starfivetech.com>,
	Jianlong Huang <jianlong.huang@starfivetech.com>,
	Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: starfive: Add JH8100
 pinctrl
Message-ID: <20240223002443.GA3877354-robh@kernel.org>
References: <20240220064246.467216-1-yuklin.soo@starfivetech.com>
 <20240220064246.467216-2-yuklin.soo@starfivetech.com>
 <1a11cee2-2ef1-4ce0-8cc1-63c6cc97863f@linaro.org>
 <20240220-bottling-reverence-e0ee08f48ccc@spud>
 <cafccf8d-b8f7-44cb-bc41-3c7a908fd1e4@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cafccf8d-b8f7-44cb-bc41-3c7a908fd1e4@linaro.org>

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:24:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 20:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 20/02/2024 07:42, Alex Soo wrote:
> >>> Add documentation and header file for JH8100 pinctrl driver.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@starfivetech.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >>
> >> RFC? Why isn't this patch ready for review?
> > 
> > The TL;DR is that Emil and I didn't want to apply the dts patches to
> > support a platform that hadn't actually been taped out yet. 
> > For an SoC in that state, at least the bindings for, clock and pinctrl
> > could be subject to changes before tapeou. I think putting RFC on those
> > patches is a good idea, but of course the rationale should be mentioned.
> 
> That would be useful information. We also could mark some bindings
> unstable and accept breaking ABI under certain conditions, like that it
> is early work without users for long time.

The challenge with that is when do things get marked stable? No one has 
any motivation to do that (unless users complain). For example, We have 
a couple of platforms that have an unstable bindings statement that has 
been there "forever".

I would like a solution though. The only idea I have is passing 
SystemReady cert, but that's an Arm thing.

Rob