Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Add compatible qcom,oryon-1-5

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 14/04/2026 08:59, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 08:23:12AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 14/04/2026 03:21, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2026 16:34, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>>>> In short, there will be Nord DTS using the binding coming, and I do not
>>>>
>>>> Maybe there will, maybe there will not.
>>>>
>>>>> think posting them at the same time should be a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it is a requirement as I explained previously, said that
>>>> *multiple* times on the mailing list, documented expectations in
>>>> mentioned/linked email threads.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I can only read the following from mentioned email
>>> threads.
>>>
>>>  - Binding and DTS should be organized in separate series per subsystem
>>>  - DTS should reference binding series by a lore link
>>>
>>
>> The links told explicitly to organize series per subsystem/maintainer.
>> Who is the subsystem here?
> 
> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> appears at the top of get_maintainer.pl
> output, so I guess it's DT/Rob?
> 
>>> These are what I'm trying to do, and I'm not just posting DTS
>>> simultaneously.  I do not really read the requirement of posting
>>> binding and DTS using it simultaneously from the email threads.
>>>
>>> Taking a step back, even if the requirement is mentioned in an email
>>> thread like this one, I'm not sure it's the correct or well received
>>> way to define a requirement.  And that might be why you had to keep
>>> repeating yourself.
>>>
>>>> It's also documented in submitting
>>>> patches in DT (although not with that strong wording).
>>>
>>> Either I'm blind or reading the wrong document.  I failed to find
>>> the requirement of posting binding and DTS using it simultaneously
>>> in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst.  Could you
>>> point it out explicitly?
>>
>> Rule 8.
> 
> This one?
> 
>   8) If a documented compatible string is not yet matched by the
>      driver, the documentation should also include a compatible
>      string that is matched by the driver
> 
> Are we looking at the same version of the document?  How does that map
> to the requirement of posting binding and DTS using it simultaneously we
> are debating here?  I'm confused.

Why is the rule there and what is expressed by it? We do not discuss
posting binding and DTS using simultaneously. We discuss lack of user of
a binding.

I even asked earlier explicitly:

"Why do want even such binding?"

Do you have a user of this compatible? Not a single one. So apply the
spirit of that rule. Or if you cannot get the spirit, you could apply it
literally.

Best regards,
Krzysztof