On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:28:44PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:02:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 02:43:42PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> > > Independent bindings can be SPI slaves which for example is
> > > the case for several panel bindings.

> > What is an "independent binding"?

> For several panels we have device trees that looks like this:

So what you're trying to do is define a generic class for SPI slaves
which are just normal children of SPI nodes?  I really can't get to
there from your changelog so we need some work there - in particular
"non-spi bindings" is *very* confusing as as far as I can see these are
bindings for SPI devices.

> The bindings are child of the spi controller node, but not specified
> in the same binding file as the spi controller node.

Of course not, this how all buses work isn't it?

> So SPI slaves can now reference spi-slave.yaml to get access to
> the SPI slave properties - and the copies can be avoided.
> Likewise spi-controller.yml now references spi-slave.yaml.

> This was the best way I saw it could be done.

Rob didn't do the binding conversion but he did review it - I'm a bit
surprised that there's issues here?

Also shouldn't there be some constraint that these devices have to be
the child of a SPI controller or something?  Just including a file
doesn't look right for something like class definition.