Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com>
Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com>
---
This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module,
using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module
and it is working fine.
---
Changes in v3:
- Remove unnecessary example, 'items', and blank line in the devicetree binding
- Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250522-ubx-m9-v2-1-6ecd470527bc@geotab.com
Changes in v2:
- Modify the binding to allow falling back to neo-m8
- Remove compatible string from u-blox driver
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250514-ubx-m9-v1-0-193973a4f3ca@geotab.com
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml
index 7d4b6d49e5eea2201ac05ba6d54b1c1721172f26..c0c2bfaa606fb01f7efee1ce7e5d30b1640783f3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml
@@ -18,10 +18,14 @@ description: >
properties:
compatible:
- enum:
- - u-blox,neo-6m
- - u-blox,neo-8
- - u-blox,neo-m8
+ oneOf:
+ - enum:
+ - u-blox,neo-6m
+ - u-blox,neo-8
+ - u-blox,neo-m8
+ - items:
+ - const: u-blox,neo-m9
+ - const: u-blox,neo-m8
reg:
description: >
---
base-commit: 9c32cda43eb78f78c73aee4aa344b777714e259b
change-id: 20250514-ubx-m9-70df0fd8c48b
Best regards,
--
Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com>On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 01:19:52PM +0200, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > > Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > --- > This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > and it is working fine. > --- > Changes in v3: > - Remove unnecessary example, 'items', and blank line in the devicetree binding > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250522-ubx-m9-v2-1-6ecd470527bc@geotab.com > > Changes in v2: > - Modify the binding to allow falling back to neo-m8 > - Remove compatible string from u-blox driver > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250514-ubx-m9-v1-0-193973a4f3ca@geotab.com Now applied, thanks. Johan
On Fri, 23 May 2025 13:19:52 +0200, Alejandro Enrique wrote: > Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > --- > This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > and it is working fine. > --- > Changes in v3: > - Remove unnecessary example, 'items', and blank line in the devicetree binding > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250522-ubx-m9-v2-1-6ecd470527bc@geotab.com > > Changes in v2: > - Modify the binding to allow falling back to neo-m8 > - Remove compatible string from u-blox driver > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250514-ubx-m9-v1-0-193973a4f3ca@geotab.com > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gnss/u-blox,neo-6m.yaml | 12 ++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > Acked-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > > Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > --- > This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > and it is working fine. > --- I assume there is a user somewhere? Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> <form letter> This is an automated instruction, just in case, because many review tags are being ignored. If you know the process, you can skip it (please do not feel offended by me posting it here - no bad intentions intended). If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for tags received on the version they apply. Full context and explanation: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 </form letter> Best regards, Krzysztof
On 23/05/2025 13:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: >> From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> >> >> Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> >> --- >> This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, >> using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module >> and it is working fine. >> --- > > I assume there is a user somewhere? > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> Un-reviewed. Please drop the patch. It turns out there is no user for this binding. We don't take bindings for every possible device out there - you need users of that binding. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:35:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/05/2025 13:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > >> From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > >> > >> Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > >> --- > >> This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > >> using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > >> and it is working fine. > >> --- > > > > I assume there is a user somewhere? > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > Un-reviewed. Please drop the patch. It turns out there is no user for > this binding. We don't take bindings for every possible device out there > - you need users of that binding. No, we don't require manufacturers to upstream their machine dts. I'll try to take a closer look at these patches next week or so. Johan
On 27/05/2025 12:44, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:35:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 23/05/2025 13:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: >>>> From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> >>>> >>>> Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> >>>> --- >>>> This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, >>>> using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module >>>> and it is working fine. >>>> --- >>> >>> I assume there is a user somewhere? >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >> Un-reviewed. Please drop the patch. It turns out there is no user for >> this binding. We don't take bindings for every possible device out there >> - you need users of that binding. > > No, we don't require manufacturers to upstream their machine dts. No, we don't take bindings for whatever is there. In any case, drop my review tag. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:51:12PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/05/2025 12:44, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:35:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 23/05/2025 13:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > >>>> From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > >>>> > >>>> Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > >>>> using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > >>>> and it is working fine. > >>>> --- > >>> > >>> I assume there is a user somewhere? > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >> Un-reviewed. Please drop the patch. It turns out there is no user for > >> this binding. We don't take bindings for every possible device out there > >> - you need users of that binding. > > > > No, we don't require manufacturers to upstream their machine dts. > > No, we don't take bindings for whatever is there. In any case, drop my > review tag. Perhaps not for whatever, but here we have an actual user that needs this binding do I'll take it. And I'll try to remember to drop your tag. Johan
On 27/05/2025 13:02, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:51:12PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 27/05/2025 12:44, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:35:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 23/05/2025 13:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: >>>>>> From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, >>>>>> using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module >>>>>> and it is working fine. >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> I assume there is a user somewhere? >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>>> Un-reviewed. Please drop the patch. It turns out there is no user for >>>> this binding. We don't take bindings for every possible device out there >>>> - you need users of that binding. >>> >>> No, we don't require manufacturers to upstream their machine dts. >> >> No, we don't take bindings for whatever is there. In any case, drop my >> review tag. > > Perhaps not for whatever, but here we have an actual user that needs > this binding do I'll take it. Great, I understand above that I can send you bindings for multiple devices I have (or had and still have interest in or my previous employer has interest in), which are used in downstream products, and you will take these bindings? That would be cool, because I have bunch of GNSS devices related to my pre-previous job, which I would really like to upstream. Is my understanding correct? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 01:14:54PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/05/2025 13:02, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:51:12PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 27/05/2025 12:44, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:35:14AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 23/05/2025 13:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>> On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > >>>>>> From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > >>>>>> using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > >>>>>> and it is working fine. > >>>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> I assume there is a user somewhere? > >>>>> > >>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > >>>> Un-reviewed. Please drop the patch. It turns out there is no user for > >>>> this binding. We don't take bindings for every possible device out there > >>>> - you need users of that binding. > >>> > >>> No, we don't require manufacturers to upstream their machine dts. > >> > >> No, we don't take bindings for whatever is there. In any case, drop my > >> review tag. > > > > Perhaps not for whatever, but here we have an actual user that needs > > this binding do I'll take it. > > Great, I understand above that I can send you bindings for multiple > devices I have (or had and still have interest in or my previous > employer has interest in), which are used in downstream products, and > you will take these bindings? > > That would be cool, because I have bunch of GNSS devices related to my > pre-previous job, which I would really like to upstream. > > Is my understanding correct? What's the issue here? We have a driver and that's the user. The requirement is a driver OR .dts for the user. Are we now discouraging having a specific compatible for a new device that's backwards compatible with an existing device? No! Rob
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 01:52:06PM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > > > > Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > > --- > > This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > > using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > > and it is working fine. > > --- > > I assume there is a user somewhere? This question is still valid. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 8:27 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 01:52:06PM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 23/05/2025 13:19, Alejandro Enrique via B4 Relay wrote: > > > From: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > > > > > > Add compatible for u-blox NEO-9M GPS module. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Enrique <alejandroe1@geotab.com> > > > --- > > > This series just add the compatible string for u-blox NEO-9M module, > > > using neo-m8 as fallback. I have tested the driver with such a module > > > and it is working fine. > > > --- > > > > I assume there is a user somewhere? > > This question is still valid. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Yes, I am using it in a board I am working on.
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.