On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:07:33PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:
On 16/05/22 22:30, Rob Herring wrote:That's not what your commit message says.
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 03:10:22PM +0530, Shreeya Patel wrote:Hi Rob,
'liteon' is the correct vendor prefix for devices released byACPI? NAK.
LITE-ON Technology Corp. But one of the released device which uses
ltr216a light sensor exposes the vendor prefix name as 'ltr' through
ACPI.
There are no cases of 'ltr' for DT, so fix ACPI.
Yes, we understand there are no cases of 'ltr', but we have released devices
which uses this string for probing the ltrf216a light sensor driver ( x86
with DT )
Even if this is DT based, given an undocumented vendor string is used,
it seems doubtful the rest of the binding would match upstream. What
about the rest of the DTB? Got a pointer to it or want to publish it?
If we don't document this in vendor-prefixes.yaml, then the followingFix the DT. We don't accept bindings simply because they are already
warning
is generated.
WARNING: DT compatible string vendor "ltr" appears un-documented -- check
./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml 364: FILE:
drivers/iio/light/ltrf216a.c:313: + { .compatible = "ltr,ltrf216a" },
Can you suggest us what would be the right way to fix this warning if not
documenting
in vendor-prefixes.yaml?
used in the field. If this was the only issue, it would be fine, but I
suspect it's the tip of the iceberg.
Rob