Hi Krzysztof and Rob,

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 2:59 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

On 12/07/2025 18:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 12/07/2025 12:40, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:

quoted

Hi Krzysztof,

On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 09:48:49AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 03:40:30PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 2:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 10/07/2025 22:08, Rosen Penev wrote:

quoted

Add device-tree bindings for the RT2800 SOC wifi device found in older
Ralink/Mediatek devices.

Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <redacted>
---
 .../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.

quoted

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".

quoted

of "compatible:" items do not match the filename. So hard to tell

I did not ask for compatible to match filename.

quoted

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.

BTW, it is not hiding on the lists:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/?q=f%3Aherring+filename
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/?q=f%3Akozlowski+filename

I just had a quick look through the in-tree documentation on device
tree bindings and can't find this rule there.

It's good that you and Rob are consistent in applying this rule, but
pointing to the mailing list archives instead of the documentation
makes it feel like patch submissions in this space are judged by some
arbitrary set of undocumented rules.

Could you please update the documentation with the current set of
requirements so that people who are new to this space have a
consistent set of rules they can apply to their work?

I understand that Krzysztof doesn't particularly like having
discussions around the rules given his usual abrasive manner, so
having the full rules documented would be a way to shift these
conversations into something a bit more like how Greg applies stable
rules: if you get it wrong, you get a link to the documentation, which
should clarify most issues without any further discussion.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/