On 12/07/2025 12:40, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:48:49AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:40:30PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 2:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/07/2025 22:08, Rosen Penev wrote: >>>>> Add device-tree bindings for the RT2800 SOC wifi device found in older >>>>> Ralink/Mediatek devices. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml | 47 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..8c13b25bd8b4 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ralink,rt2800.yaml >>>> >>>> Filename should match compatible. You were already changing something >>>> here... >>> hrm? that makes no sense. Various drivers have multiple compatible lines. >> >> Luckily we do not speak about drivers here. Anyway, follow standard >> review practices, you don't get special rules. > > Could you please elaborate what you mean ? Rosen replied in abrasive way, so I am not going to dig this. > > I greped through Documentation/devicetree/bindings/*/*.yaml and plenty I assume you refer to last 2 years bindings, not something older, right? It is really poor argument to find old files and use them as example "they did like that". > of "compatible:" items do not match the filename. So hard to tell I did not ask for compatible to match filename. > what rule you are referencing, as it seems it's not really applied. Check reviews on the lists. It is pretty standard review. Everyone gets it for this case here - single device, single compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
