Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: Add NPCM reset status support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 17/02/2026 07:53, Tomer Maimon wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 at 20:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 04:59:18PM +0200, Tomer Maimon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 at 16:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +  syscon:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First iteration. See "How to Get Your DT Schema Bindings Accepted
>> in
>>>>>>>> Less Than 10 Iterations"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, it was very helpful.
>>>>>>> the syscon property is already found in the WD node
>>>>>>> in nuvoton-common-npcm8xx.dtsi file, what should I do:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is that file related to this binding?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either you document existing ABI or you add new (for new device).
>> Commit
>>>>>> msg MUST be explicit about it and provide the reasons. If wrong
>> (e.g.
>>>>>> discouraged) ABI was already used then it depends how and when it
>> got
>>>>>> into the kernel, e.g. if someone bypassed DT completely just to get
>> it
>>>>>> inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The syscon property is already used in the upstream NPCM8xx DTSI
>> watchdog
>>>>> node, so I will document it as existing ABI and mark it deprecated. I
>>>> will
>>>>
>>>> And how it is used? I cannot find its usage, so I do not agree on
>>>> documenting it. Property should be removed or at least provide the
>>>> justification/impact of removal, if you need it to stay.
>>>>
>>>> Understood. The syscon phandle is used by the watchdog driver to read
>> and
>>
>> You messed up quotes.
>>
>> Can you point me to the line? I REALLY want to be sure that we are not
>> wasting each other time, e.g. me looking at wrong code or you telling me
>> some bollocks from downstream.
>>
> The syscon property is not used in the current upstream npcm_wdt driver.
> It is used *in this patch set*, which introduces the function

Why would that matter for the ABI?

So no, your buggy DTS sneaked into the kernel before submitting bindings
is not acceptable thus ABI which was NEVER reviewed must be removed.


Best regards,
Krzysztof