Re: [PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: hwmon: ibm,cffps: move to trivial devices

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <trivial@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: hwmon: ibm,cffps: move to trivial devices
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:40:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1a8cfa30-769d-d0aa-ffef-1eda42e3a84d@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210921131804.GC1864238@roeck-us.net>

On 21/09/2021 15:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:45:42PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/09/2021 14:30, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 12:28:29PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> The IBM Common Form Factor Power Supply Versions 1 and 2 bindings are
>>>> trivial, so they can be integrated into trivial devices bindings.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
>>>
>>> I won't accept any of those "move to trivial devices" patches. In many cases
>>> the bindings are simply incomplete. I can not and will not make that call,
>>> and I always did and will leave it up to driver authors to decide if they
>>> want to add a device to trivial devices or provide explicit bindings.
>>>
>>> Please stop sending those patches.
>>>
>>
>> Back in the older times, there were no trivial-devices and checkpatch
>> plus maintainers required documenting compatibles, so some of such
>> simple bindings were created.
>>
> 
> At the same time, as I said, the bindings for many chips are incomplete.
> For this driver, we can not make that call because the datasheet is not
> public. The same is true for dps650ab. For others, the datasheet is
> available, and a reasonable decision can be made if the chip may ever
> need more complete bindings.
> 
> So, let's qualify my statement: I'll accept such patches if you can show,
> from the datasheet, that it is unlikely that explicit bindings will ever
> be needed. That would be the case for LM70, for example. That would need
> more than a statement that "bindings are trivial", though. It also require
> a statement along the line that you have confirmed, from to the datasheet,
> that there is nothing to configure for this chip that would ever require
> explicit bindings.

Thanks for longer explanation. I agree with your reasoning here. I'll
re-check my move-to-trivial patches and, if applicable, send a new
version with better explanation.

I hope this won't stop from reviewing the few other patches in the set
adding separate bindings.

Best regards,
Krzysztof