From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/36] dt-bindings: spi: support non-spi bindings as SPI slaves Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:35:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20200316163538.GJ5010@sirena.org.uk> References: <20200315134416.16527-1-sam@ravnborg.org> <20200315134416.16527-3-sam@ravnborg.org> <20200316120239.GC5010@sirena.org.uk> <20200316132844.GA22822@ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+" Cc: dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, Thierry Reding , Rob Herring , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Alexandre Courbot , Andrzej Hajda , Brian Masney , Chris Zhong , Douglas Anderson , Guido Gunther , Heiko Schocher , Nikolaus Schaller , Hoegeun Kwon , Jagan Teki , Jerry Han , Jonathan Bakker , Laurent Pinchart , Lin Huang , Linus Walleij , linux-spi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Marco Fr To: Sam Ravnborg Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200316132844.GA22822-uyr5N9Q2VtJg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-spi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: --3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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. --3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAl5vqtkACgkQJNaLcl1U h9D9Jgf7BDsLTp/6OG/zIxXw5pr33X7ZgheGEgzqYDaH/LK45lJUNdpYb2eTABDv Jg1MzeqqPxP1ppvEvmo3VRdudgU+m+hKTtHAbIwVnxY32nmSAweUnDySfKWCNl/1 LZXTrA6hFaFU4AmTj3iCIbNe4mHY9jt5f+DZN/31ZNr43VGfjXvqpSei/exRu+/i Hnh0w0MvGQVHfD3V6AMGlaFrhLO59ZR6KPxXfQCGlJRfCuAgrjgJUK+0KSGsDf48 oTef8wJIjDm4r8LCFdN10GzODwdcLE6HGGzWl8pB1sEfKP4p4tFtWOTh/JIyTQZM dHvwfKrDy65fP8P6ytpHy352wV8kQw== =nY4o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+--