Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: pinctrl: starfive: Add JH8100 pinctrl

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 08:24:26AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/02/2024 20:10, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 20/02/2024 07:42, Alex Soo wrote:
> >>> Add documentation and header file for JH8100 pinctrl driver.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Soo <yuklin.soo@starfivetech.com>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >>
> >> RFC? Why isn't this patch ready for review?
> > 
> > The TL;DR is that Emil and I didn't want to apply the dts patches to
> > support a platform that hadn't actually been taped out yet. 
> > For an SoC in that state, at least the bindings for, clock and pinctrl
> > could be subject to changes before tapeou. I think putting RFC on those
> > patches is a good idea, but of course the rationale should be mentioned.
> 
> That would be useful information. We also could mark some bindings
> unstable and accept breaking ABI under certain conditions, like that it
> is early work without users for long time.

I don't want to discourage a vendor that's clearly doing a good job of
working on things before they've even taped things out, which is why I
suggested sending clocks/pinctrl as RFC until things are finalised.
I'm not sure what a good way to mention this in the bindings would be,
particularly for clock/pinctrl definitions where things could change
"behind the back" of a user - I'm thinking things like U-Boot here.

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