On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/07/2022 20:43, Mark Brown wrote:

> > ...with a fallback list required by the bindings so the driver actually
> > binds.  Note that bindings are currently not in YAML format so there'd
> > be even less enforcement of that than normal, and as they're currently
> > written the bindings don't require fallback.

> Yes, the bindings document should be rephrased but we were living like
> that for few years. :)

The binding document as it stands only has one compatible, there's no
existing problem with it other than the YAML conversion.  If we're
adding something new that requires a fallback we should be explicit
about that rather than have something that's actively misleading where
previously things were clear.  I don't mind if we add the compatible to
the driver or document the requirement for the fallback but we should do
one of the two.