* "complete" dt-bindings for new SoC
@ 2025-08-13 4:56 Chris Packham
2025-08-13 5:48 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Chris Packham @ 2025-08-13 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski, conor+dt, robh+dt; +Cc: devicetree, linux-kernel
Hi Devicetree Enthusiasts,
A few times now I've been told that things would have been easier had I
submitted a complete binding in the first place. I find myself looking
at another new SoC (a Realtek Switch with and integrated ARM64 core this
time). I'm also waiting on hardware so I figured I could probably get
the ball rolling on a devicetree and I wanted to do a better job of
writing the binding.
Which brings be to the question. What does a "complete" binding mean to
the devicetree maintainers? Are we talking about an overall binding for
the chip that calls out peripherals (some which already exist) with a
ref: ? Or a full binding in one document that covers everything in the
chip? Does it need to be accompanied by an actual dts(i) for the chip?
Thanks,
Chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: "complete" dt-bindings for new SoC
2025-08-13 4:56 "complete" dt-bindings for new SoC Chris Packham
@ 2025-08-13 5:48 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2025-08-13 5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Packham, Krzysztof Kozlowski, conor+dt, robh+dt
Cc: devicetree, linux-kernel
On 13/08/2025 06:56, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi Devicetree Enthusiasts,
>
> A few times now I've been told that things would have been easier had I
> submitted a complete binding in the first place. I find myself looking
> at another new SoC (a Realtek Switch with and integrated ARM64 core this
> time). I'm also waiting on hardware so I figured I could probably get
> the ball rolling on a devicetree and I wanted to do a better job of
> writing the binding.
>
> Which brings be to the question. What does a "complete" binding mean to
> the devicetree maintainers? Are we talking about an overall binding for
> the chip that calls out peripherals (some which already exist) with a
> ref: ? Or a full binding in one document that covers everything in the
> chip? Does it need to be accompanied by an actual dts(i) for the chip?
Writing bindings doc describes that. I would add on top - if SoC has
multiple devices of same class, like multiple clock controllers or
resets, this should be taken into account if not sending all of them.
And by taking account I mean think how complete picture will look like.
One SoC for RISV-V is example of that...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-08-13 5:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-08-13 4:56 "complete" dt-bindings for new SoC Chris Packham
2025-08-13 5:48 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®