Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: i2c: Move i2c-omap.txt to YAML format

[Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>]

Hi Tony,

On 5/7/21 10:54 PM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/05/2021 17:36, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:45:45 +0530
>> Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/21 12:24 PM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/05/2021 17:00, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>>>> Convert i2c-omap.txt to YAML schema for better checks and
>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following properties were used in DT but were not documented in txt
>>>>> bindings and has been included in YAML schema:
>>>>> 1. Include ti,am4372-i2c compatible
>>>>> 2. Include dmas property used in few OMAP dts files
>>>>
>>>> The DMA is not supported by i2c-omap driver, so wouldn't be better to
>>>> just drop dmas from DTBs to avoid confusions?
>>>> It can be added later.
>>>>    
>>>
>>> Will do.. I will also send patches dropping dmas from dts that currently
>>> have them populated.
>>>
>> hmm, we have
>> - DO attempt to make bindings complete even if a driver doesn't
>> support some
>>    features. For example, if a device has an interrupt, then include the
>>    'interrupts' property even if the driver is only polled mode.
>>
>> in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst
>> Shouln't the dma stay there if the hardware supports it? Devicetree
>> should describe the hardware not the driver if I understood things
>> right.
> 
> True.  But my above statement is also valid - it introduces confusion
> from user point of view.
> More over, 'dmas' is not part of original binding and were randomly
> added to some SoCs.
> And it's much more easy to extend binding (in the future) then remove
> something after.
> 
> I leave it to Vignesh, Tony to decide.
> 

What do you prefer here? Removing dmas from schema would mean I would
have to delete dmas property from omap2/3 dtsi files that list dmas
property today? Note that driver does not support DMA mode today.


Regards
Vignesh