Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: rockchip: tighten grf requirements

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1261 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 08:35:12PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 08:48:23PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 07:40:49PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > Instead of having an optional rockchip,grf property, forbid using it on
> > > platforms without registers in a GRF being needed for thermal monitoring
> > > and make it mandatory on the platforms actually needing it.
> > 
> > I am assuming that "needing it" means that it was actually mandatory but
> > the binding was just missing the required required entry. If so
> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> I just noticed, that I never replied: The GRF configuration is
> required for proper functionality as far as I can tell. Technically
> it might be skipped, if the bootloader already configured the
> registers correctly. but I don't think this is something anyone wants
> to rely on and with the same argument we could describe almost any
> resource as optional :) The upstream kernel DT always had the GRF
> specified for these platforms (and thus most likely has never been
> tested without it).

Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

(ik I gave it already, but for clarity)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]