On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 04:56:30PM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 février 2026 à 20:59 +0000, Conor Dooley a écrit :
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 02:45:11PM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 26 février 2026 à 18:43 +0000, Conor Dooley a écrit :

> > > > Deprecating the order also makes little sense to me, given that some of
> > > > these devices only have one reg entry, which as far as I can tell from
> > > > looking at the driver *is* the "function" region, so it can never be
> > > > entirely deprecated.
> > > 
> > > What I'd like to see, is a binding expression that behave like a set, not a
> > > list, and leave the ordering open. As people keep repeating, there is nothing in
> > > a binding that assist to define the right ordering (its not address or base
> > > addres aware). That basically means, we can't as reviewer see that ordering is
> > > going to imposing using a base address in the unit name (which is a convenience,
> > > not a rule I suppose) that differ from the vendor documented base address.
> > > 
> > > By explicitly removing the ordering in the binding, we create a strict rule that
> > > driver should retrieve this by name, and never assume the ordering, which I
> > > personally like.
> > > 
> > > thoughts ?
> > 
> > Yeah, you can do this, but to avoid potential breaks you have to do it
> > from the start, not after the fact. Probably there's bindings that get
> > acked every day that do do this. Even the retcon is okay to do when
> > reg-names is mandated by the binding and the users use reg-names in my
> > opinion.
> 
> I think from the above analyses, since the usage only starts in rc1, we have
> room for improving it knowing we aren't creating problem for anyone. Note that I
> have no idea what the syntax is to "do this", and I doubt either Detlev or
> Cristian have a clue.

I think this is the only bit that really still needs a reply, this can
be solved by adding reg-names as "required" to the existing conditional
portion of the binding. There's probably hundreds of examples if one
does a search for "then:\n.*required:" to use a basis for the change
here. Probably should be an independent change, since it is needed even
without the re-order given the bug I brought up.