Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: arm: socionext: add bindings for the Synquacer platform

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/06/2023 22:06, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 11:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/06/2023 18:23, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 05:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16/06/2023 05:58, jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Socionext's DeveloperBox is based on the SC2A11B SoC (Synquacer).
>>>>> Specify bindings for the platform and boards based on that.
>>>>
>>>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The
>>>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>>>>
>>> I can remove it, but I see many mentions like "Fix bindings for"  "Add
>>> binding for" etc in the subject line.
>>
>> Can we fix them as well?
>>
> ??

What else I can say to such argument?

> 
> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Binding without it's user is usually useless. Where is the user?
>>>>
>>> It is required for SystemReady-2.0 certification.
>>
>> For what? If there is no user, it is not required for SR. We don't
>> document compatibles for something which does not exist in the projects.
>>
> The dts/dtsi for synquacer will be added later.
> I am sure you are aware that there are countless bindings without
> actual use in any dts/dtsi.

Bindings without user (so no DTSI and no driver)? Just few, not countless.

> When exactly did it become mandatory to
> have dts/dtsi for the bindings to be merged upstream?

It was always. We do not want/need to document downstream stuff or
anything  just because it is somewhere there.

Best regards,
Krzysztof