Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/02] Remove undocumented IMR-LX4 device nodes

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 01:11:41PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:53:58PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > On 03/25/2019 02:03 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:49 PM Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Remove undocumented IMR-LX4 device nodes
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [PATCH/RFC 01/02] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7795: Remove IMR-LX4 device nodes
> > >>>>>> [PATCH/RFC 02/02] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a7796: Remove IMR-LX4 device nodes
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> These patches take the easy way out and simply remove the undocumented
> > >>>>>> IMR-LX4 device nodes from the upstream tree. Good or bad, let me know!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So perhaps this is a bit overly aggressive but since the DT bindings seem
> > >>>>>> undocumented and no driver exists in upstream my gut feeling says these DT
> > >>>>>> nodes were part of an upstreaming attempt that got suspended half-way through.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In case DT binding documentation is in-flight and queued up somewhere
> > >>>>>> (ideally together with a driver) then feel free to ignore this series.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Instead of removing nodes we could also document the DT bindings for the
> > >>>>>> IMR-LX4 devices. It would also make sense to add device nodes to other
> > >>>>>> more recent SoCs than just H3 and M3-W. But blindly adding more DT nodes
> > >>>>>> with a DT binding but without a driver seems a bit suboptimal compared to
> > >>>>>> testing against an actual driver.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [PATCH v5] media: platform: Renesas IMR driver
> > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/20170309200818.786255823@cogentembedded.com/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks, but that seems to be from 2017! =)
> > >>>
> > >>>    I dropped the ball there, as I was tasked with upstreaming V3x support...
> > >>> The last thing done about the IMR driver was talking to Hans in Prague in
> > >>> 2017.  I'm planning to return to the driver after I'm done with the
> > >>> HyperFlash driver.
> > >>
> > >> Hi Sergei,
> > >>
> > >> I appreciate that we are not always in control of our own priorities,
> > >> indeed I sympathise with that predicament. However, we shouldn't really
> > >> be in a situation where DT is making use of undocumented bindings.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to ask for the bindings to be documented in the upstream
> > >> kernel in the near future. And if that is not possible I believe we
> > >> should consider temporarily removing their use in DT in the upstream kernel.
> > > 
> > > Hi Sergei,
> > > 
> > > about two months have passed since Magnus posted this series.
> > 
> >    Time flies...
> >    Dealing w/ the flash drivers turned into unending nightmare. :-(
> > 
> > > Do you have a timeline to address the problems?
> > 
> >    I'm looking into posting the bindings separately right now.
> > The patch should be ready today or tomorrow.
> > 
> > > If so I believe> that the way forward should be to apply this series.
> > 
> >    Hm, not sure I understood you correctly. You're going to remove
> > the device nodes even if I have a timeline?
> 
> Sorry, there was a typo in the above. Of course not.

Also, I now see
"[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: media: Renesas R-Car IMR bindings".

Thanks for working on this.