On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:26 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>> I wouldn't be stoked to see device trees abusing the "gpio-mmio,base" > >>>> property all of a sudden just because it now exists as a device > >>>> property though... I kind of wish we had a way to opt out of exposing > >>>> this to all the sub-property paths. But it seems tiresome, so: > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Yours, > >>>> Linus Walleij > >>> > >>> That's not a problem - this property is not in any DT bindings and as > >>> such is not an allowed property in DT sources. For out-of-tree DTs? We > >>> don't care about those. > >> That's not true, we do care about implied ABI. Try changing/breaking > >> this later, when users complain their out of tree DTS is affected, and > >> explaining this all to Greg. > >> > > > > Wait, seriously? I thought that the upstream bindings are the source > > of truth for device-tree sources... > > > They are, until they are not... ok, we don't really care that much about > out of tree DTS, but in-tree DTS still could use these and don't care > about bindings check, right? > Could they though? I can imagine this happening by accident but in general: you'd expect new sources to follow the bindings and be verifiable against them? Otherwise, what's the point of the schema? Bart
