Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: dma: arm-dma350: update DT binding docs

Jun Guo
2025-11-18T01:37:07Z

On 11/17/2025 9:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/11/2025 13:51, Jun Guo wrote:
>> On 11/17/2025 3:13 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>>>
>>> On 17/11/2025 08:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/11/2025 08:07, Jun Guo wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:11 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/11/2025 02:59, Jun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>> - Add new compatible strings to the DT binding documents to support
>>>>>> This is not a list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, subject is completely redundant. Everything is an update. Why are
>>>>>> you repeating DT binding docs?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. I will incorporate your feedback in the next version.>> cix
>>>>> sky1 SoC.
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jun Guo<jun.guo@cixtech.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> You just broke all existing platforms. Please test your code properly.
>>>>> The patch includes proper checks. Since this platform is the first user
>>>> Nah, tests are here incomplete - look at the binding and DTS users...
>>>> nothing there, so you cannot test it.
>>>>
>>>>> of the driver in the current codebase, the change won't affect other
>>>>> platforms.
>>>> NAK, and you keep pushing... I just told you it will break everyone,
>>>> which is obvious from the diff.
>>> But if that was intentional change of ABI, then could be fine, but you
>>> must provide in commit msg proper detailed rationale WHY you are
>>> changing ABI and WHAT is the ABI impact of that change.
>>>
>> I'm not entirely sure if I fully grasped your point, but I also
>> identified the potential issue. I've reworked the patch to accommodate
>> both the default DTS case with a single compatible string and the
>> scenario where platform-specific compatible strings need to be added.
>> Could you please review it again and confirm if this aligns with your
>> intent?
>>
>> properties:
>> compatible:
>> contains:
> Which example uses such syntax?
>
>> enum:
>> - cix,sky1-dma-350
>> - arm,dma-350
> It's completely different than previous, so I don't know what you want
> to achieve, but maybe you wanted to explain lack of compatibility in the
> commit msg. Anyway, send proper patches with proper justification (and
> for above would really need to be proper).
>
OK.Thank you for your prompt​ reply.> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Best regards,
Jun