From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494BAC04AA5 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FF920881 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="VZoHcjfy" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 05FF920881 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726926AbeJPDBh (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2018 23:01:37 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:47998 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726681AbeJPDBh (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2018 23:01:37 -0400 Received: from dflxv15.itg.ti.com ([128.247.5.124]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9FJEtNC071882; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:14:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1539630895; bh=M4PHgn4lSUF/mVrSfvSpqE5wU5Oc8XQ41BK4YAWBuUE=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VZoHcjfyDHeiSHuJMghvdVZsmS3uEdDcuNvAeGyNNYJqC8aAayJbR65HtPhhgozim gaPtNEoXWLv9JZA1hPop8nlknIpYEgORn7J3ss5/s42O6qL21o7bZB7tnEAI6rcyI2 TXIn/MxLJxUj2RtfAccmAis2NVvyfk+nDxx9h0UY= Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (dfle106.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.27]) by dflxv15.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w9FJEtMC018310; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:14:55 -0500 Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:14:54 -0500 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:14:54 -0500 Received: from [172.22.143.15] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w9FJEs6g026875; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:14:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697 To: Jacek Anaszewski , Rob Herring CC: Pavel Machek , Lee Jones , Tony Lindgren , , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux LED Subsystem References: <20181011165123.32198-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20181011165123.32198-3-dmurphy@ti.com> <20181011182734.GA7973@amd> <4fcb91c7-b2b2-798d-8a41-fa1b475086e0@ti.com> <8c1559e1-b703-4c98-8bd9-7c9993bd59f5@gmail.com> <20181012162619.GA28573@bogus> <20181012180312.GB5565@amd> <60cc9238-aba2-aa6a-64a4-2b5e20835549@gmail.com> <73647af4-0258-49a9-d9b6-eeef7e7813dc@gmail.com> From: Dan Murphy Message-ID: <5c7f03cc-4d45-6010-523d-46721c218731@ti.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:14:49 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <73647af4-0258-49a9-d9b6-eeef7e7813dc@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jacek On 10/15/2018 02:13 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > On 10/15/2018 02:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM Jacek Anaszewski >> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/12/2018 08:03 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NAK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the NAK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This NAK was NAK'd by other maintainer in the V2 RFC patchset >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/993171/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I confirm. LM3697 is a standalone device and not a cell of any >>>>>> MFD device. >>>>>> >>>>>> Waiting for DT maintainer's ack. >>>>> >>>>> You all sort out what you want... I can't follow it all, and I'm not >>>>> going to spend the time trying to figure out what is going on here. >>>> >>>> This is what I want: >>>> >>>>> As this is worded, changing the driver is a Linux problem and irrelevant >>>>> to the binding. Now if you want to move documentation to a location that >>>>> makes more sense, then fine. But structure patches that way and make it >>>>> clear that from an binding ABI perspective, nothing is changing. >>>> >>>> ...but apparently I did not have enough authority to get it. >>>> >>>> (I'm ok with move, and it is possible that binding does need some >>>> fixups besides the move; still it should be done as fixup not as a new >>>> binding). >>> >>> There is a fundamental question - should the bindings be considered >>> an ABI, even though there is no mainline "*.dts" implementation basing >>> on these bindings? >> >> In theory there could be out of tree users. Having a dts file using it >> in tree shouldn't be a requirement to maintain the ABI IMO. However, a >> lack of dts is one piece of determining whether this is in use or not. >> >>> This patch fixes the issues of bindings in a way that would change >>> the ABI, if only it existed. But it apparently doesn't exist in >>> mainline. Unless a DT documentation itself constitutes an ABI. >>> >>> I'd like to have it clarified at this occasion, and that's why >>> I kindly ask for DT maintainer's ack or NACK for this modification >>> of bindings. >>> >>> For a reference we have a nice summary of the MFD driver and related >>> bindings' flaws in [0] and [1]. >>> >>> [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/7/774 >>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/11/984 >> >> Given this one seems to have not really been finished, it's probably >> okay to make changes in this case. Still, it would be good to see >> patches structured so that it's obvious we're breaking things. But how >> the patches are structured doesn't matter until there's some agreement >> on the end result. > > OK, so if I'm getting it right, the correct patch structure in this case > means that changes removing bindings from MFD and moving them along > with the modifications to the LED subsystem should be placed in a single > patch. > > Dan, could you please arrange the next patch set version accordingly? Yes I can squash the DT bindings patches and call it a "move and modify" Dan > -- ------------------ Dan Murphy