Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] dt-bindings: drm: bridge: adi,adv7511.txt: convert to yaml

From: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@collabora.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: "Ricardo Cañuelo" <ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com>,
	"Collabora Kernel ML" <kernel@collabora.com>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Wei Xu" <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] dt-bindings: drm: bridge: adi,adv7511.txt: convert to yaml
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 16:45:03 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a0a8d9178c4b5c05835115f5d2f4301e44146e8f.camel@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUV+qHpfLfbYwQwPXAUsh7HXvonUNWNh-SeTC-RpHwrog@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 12:39 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:12 PM Laurent Pinchart
> <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:03:09AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:44 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:43:35AM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> > > > > On jue 14-05-2020 18:22:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > > > If we want to be more strict and require the definition of all the
> > > > > > > supplies, there will be many more DTs changes in the series, and I'm not
> > > > > > > sure I'll be able to do that in a reasonable amount of time. I'm looking
> > > > > > > at them and it's not always clear which regulators to use or if they are
> > > > > > > even defined.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We can decouple the two though (I think). The bindings should reflect
> > > > > > what we consider right, and the dts files could be fixed on top.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you have a suggestion on how to do this? If we decouple the two
> > > > > tasks most of the work would be searching for DTs to fix and finding a
> > > > > way to fix each one of them, and unless I do this _before_ the binding
> > > > > conversion I'll get a lot of dtbs_check errors.
> > > > 
> > > > Rob should answer this question as it will be his decision, but I've
> > > > personally never considered non-compliant DT sources to be an obstacle
> > > > to bindings conversion to YAML. The DT sources should be fixed, but I
> > > > don't see it as a prerequisite (although it's a good practice).
> > > 
> > > I do my best to avoid introducing regressions when the binding conversions
> > > go upstream.
> > 
> > Please note that we're not talking about runtime regressions, as drivers
> > are not updated. It's "only" dtbs_check that would produce new errors.
> 
> Exactly.  I was talking about "make dtbs_check" regressions, too.
> 

A "make dtbs_check" failure, due to some foo.dts that fails the check
due to a correct YAML conversion, can't be considered a regression.

I strongly agree with Laurent here, we want to convert the bindings
to YAML and we can't consider non-compliant DT sources to prevent them.

Regards,
Ezequiel