From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756330AbbA2Qnj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:43:39 -0500
Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk ([93.93.135.160]:47513 "EHLO
	bhuna.collabora.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754720AbbA2Qng (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:43:36 -0500
Message-ID: <54CA6331.3010909@collabora.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:43:29 +0100
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@nvidia.com>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Documentation: DT: document compatible string existence
 requirement
References: <20150128234935.20644.89300.stgit@dusk.lan> <20150128234936.20644.76672.stgit@dusk.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20150128234936.20644.76672.stgit@dusk.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello Paul,

On 01/29/2015 12:49 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 
> DT maintainers require all compatible strings used in chip or board
> DTS file to be previously documented somewhere in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings, per:
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-tegra&m=142201349727836&w=2
>

I would had preferred if checkpatch.pl didn't warn about the most specific
variants of the IP blocks tbh.

Since afaiu those were only added to the compatible string as a way to make
it future proof in case there is going to be needed later. So in that sense
I thought they were not part of the DT ABI.

Now, dumping the unused specific strings in binding docs only to make
checkpatch happy, will have the effect of making those unused strings become
part of the DT ABI. Which mean that couldn't be dropped later if those are
found to not be needed since there won't be a way to know if an OS following
the DT binding will be matching those or not.

But since the decision is to warn for all strings in a compatible property
even if those are not used, I agree with you that it should be documented.

Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@collabora.co.uk>

Best regards,
Javier