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 4DBE2C64EBC for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127FA2082A for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="RT/zZoID" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 127FA2082A 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 S1727735AbeJDUUT (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:20:19 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:56490 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727367AbeJDUUT (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:20:19 -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 w94DQtUd034144; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1538659615; bh=GDXwjCNTID0IvHwglAz4GPWyhAy/bhG7BIv1S2DstWY=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=RT/zZoIDEF99NOoaU1fkbXFyldhN/RA2pDLXbJ4U0oUELy3uwD+wmZYH6Iau9KQvF c1bGqSdRXediSsfHgb671KzJVJxYmwoXBSVoCySPwzxJqzJmP9iutumWFzO1ygNsXP ndUn+XiGj4OlchhsRAtyD0XU2m5czWtVxtAYX99A= Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (dfle105.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.26]) by dflxv15.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w94DQtBp004948; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:55 -0500 Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:55 -0500 Received: from dlep33.itg.ti.com (157.170.170.75) 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; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:55 -0500 Received: from [172.22.163.235] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dlep33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w94DQtQq008161; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/9] dt-bindings: ti-lmu: Remove LM3697 To: Jacek Anaszewski , Pavel Machek CC: , , , , , References: <20180928182954.25446-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20180928182954.25446-3-dmurphy@ti.com> <20181002072827.GA19677@amd> <20181003130154.GA20418@amd> From: Dan Murphy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:50 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" 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 10/03/2018 03:46 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > On 10/03/2018 03:01 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> On Wed 2018-10-03 07:24:23, Dan Murphy wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> On 10/02/2018 02:28 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>>> On Fri 2018-09-28 13:29:47, Dan Murphy wrote: >>>>> Remove support for the LM3697 LED device >>>>> from the ti-lmu. The LM3697 will be supported >>>>> via a stand alone LED driver. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy >>>> >>>> NAK, for reasons I explained before. Please add it to the patch so >>>> that it does not get applied by mistake. Ouch and AFAICT Rob was not >>>> happy with this either. >>>> >>>> Yes, you are creating new drivers, ok; but that does _not_ mean you >>>> should create new binding. >>> >>> I am copying my comment here on the review of this original binding for >>> records >>> >>> I found the review or at least the reference for the ti-lmu.txt binding. >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/764180/ >>> >>> Does not appear that the binding was sent to the device tree mail list. >>> (Maybe that email list did not exist in Feb 2017). >> >> Quick google shows: >> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/666023/ > > This link refreshed my memory and allowed me to recall Milo's patch set > from the end of 2015, and the related discussion. I had an impression > that I had had some request regarding the bindings but there was no > follow-up. > > I've googled that thread [0] and it proved I was right [1]. > > From Milo's messages we can infer that there will be next > version of the patch set and it appeared but over a year later [2], > and without the leds-lm3633 driver and related bindings, and without > drivers/video/backlight/ti-lmu-backlight-core.c. > > Patch set gets merged despite dangling DT references. > > Dan, I propose you to resend the patch removing the bindings from > MFD, and explain the rationale in the patch below commit message > after "---" . > >> Now can we stop this nonsense? If there is a problem with the binding, >> submit patches to fix the problem. > > [0] > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1448521025-2796-1-git-send-email-milo.kim@ti.com/ > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/56656468.8020300@samsung.com/ > [2] > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1341860.html > Sounds good I will clean this up and submit a v3 non-RFC edition Dan -- ------------------ Dan Murphy