On 5/26/2026 9:48 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 10:40:06AM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> Bindings can be deprecated and driver should not include bindings
>> headers directly. Instead define needed constants in the driver.
>>
>
> Is there an official directive about not including bindings in drivers? To me
> it seems advantageous to have a focal point for the definition of constants,
> guaranteeing eveyone uses the same values.
>
This is what I found from here:
https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-soc.html
2.3.2. Driver Branch Dependencies
"Avoid defining custom macros in include/dt-bindings/ for hardware
constants that can be derived from a datasheet -- binding macros in
header files should only be used as a last resort if there is no natural
way to define a binding"
Also, bindings can be deprecated, so if the current binding gets
deprecated, the header file can be removed from the include/dt-bindings.
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 6 +++++-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 45a62cb98072..f5b736fa3cb4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@
>> *
>> */
>>
>> -#include <dt-bindings/power/xlnx-zynqmp-power.h>
>> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
>> #include <linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> @@ -19,6 +18,11 @@
>>
>> #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>>
>> +#define PD_R5_0_ATCM 15
>> +#define PD_R5_0_BTCM 16
>> +#define PD_R5_1_ATCM 17
>> +#define PD_R5_1_BTCM 18
>> +
>> /* IPI buffer MAX length */
>> #define IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX 32U
>>
>>
>> base-commit: 54dacf6efe7196c1cd8ae4b5c691579d0510a8bd
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
