Re: [PATCH 1/1] dt-bindings: mfd: da9052: allow dlg,da9053-aa fallback to dlg,da9052

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 10:06:25AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2026, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 11:25:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, 01 Sep 2026, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 04:15:21PM -0400, Frank.Li@oss.nxp.com wrote:
> > > > > From: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Allow dlg,da9053-aa fallback to dlg,da9052 to fix legacy platform (> 10
> > > > > years) check_dtbs warnings:
> > > > >   arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx/imx53-voipac-bsb.dtb: dialog@48 (dlg,da9053-aa): compatible: ['dlg,da9053-aa', 'dlg,da9052'] is too long
> > > > >         from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/dlg,da9052.yaml
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Previous try drop dlg,da9052 at
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20260404-thoughtful-placid-boobook-da26da@quoll/
> > > > > 
> > > > > but Krzy have concern about compablity.
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20251107-matrimony-showdown-ba6ce6996b2f@spud/
> > > > > 
> > > > > Conor prefer update old dts.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think these devices are actually compatible, so this fallback
> > > > would be wrong.
> > > > The data comes from the match data, be that spi or i2c, and there's
> > > > explicitly different behaviour for the da9052 and da9053aa.
> > > > I doubt the legacy platform ever worked properly, and this is what should
> > > > have been explained in the PR that Krzysztof denied not just blindly
> > > > citing a dtbs_check problem.
> > > > 
> > > > Nacked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > > 
> > > At first glance this looks like an Acked-by.
> > > 
> > > IMHO, this is going to cause issues - please rethink this.
> > 
> > As in, use NAKed-by instead or just say NAK without the name/mail?
> > Not entirely sure what you're getting at.
> 
> As in, don't make NACKs looks like acceptance trailers.
> 
> If you're going to "NACK", which I always felt was a bit harsh anyway,
> just say it without making it appear like an official sign-off.  Please.

Heh, tag is correct if maintainer, e.g. you in this case, would like to
take such patch still. There were already such cases, I did it once as
well to express that I do not agree with the approach taken by other
maintainer and I want to be sure that a commit in git history will never
be used in future discussions against my review (because this happens
all the time "I found commit like this, so I can add here poor code").

Best regards,
Krzysztof