Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] dt-bindings: mmc: sdhci-msm: Document the Glymur compatible

[Monish Chunara]

On 7/28/2026 5:59 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/07/2026 14:25, Monish Chunara wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/2026 5:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2026 16:30, Monish Chunara wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/8/2026 12:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 07:43:44PM +0530, Monish Chunara wrote:
>>>>>> From: Monish Chunara <monish.chunara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glymur integrates the MSM SDHCI v5 controller. Document the SoC-specific
>>>>>> 'qcom,glymur-sdhci' compatible as required by binding convention to
>>>>>> identify the hardware and reserve the namespace for future SoC-specific
>>>>>> quirks, with 'qcom,sdhci-msm-v5' as the fallback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drop half of above sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Document the SDHCI controller on Qualcomm Glymur soC, fully compatible
>>>>> with existing MSM SDHCI v5."
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not need to say anything about some conventions or reserving
>>>>> namespaces. We do not reserve namespaces...
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, thanks. will update in v4. 
>>>>
>>>> Just for my understanding, though: how does the suggested wording capture the 
>>>> why behind the change? Per previous comments and understanding, the rationale 
>>>> for introducing the SoC-specific compatible is the reason we are making this 
>>>> change. For future submissions, this would help to avoid similar back-and-forth.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think you need to document the "why" if it is 100% obvious
>>> (and I did state it many times)?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>
>> This was asked because it was suggested on first-post to add a why. 
>>
>> "Same questions as always... why? Don't explain what you did. Explain why
>> ou did that way."
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9bb28a60-2c01-449d-9456-bcf2d780b68c@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Pardon, if this was a misunderstanding.
> 
> Yes, so you need to explain why you did that way. Not why you are
> sending this patch. We all know why you are sending this patch.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Understood and ACK, would make sure to follow this in any further post sent.

Regards,
Monish