[PATCH v4 phy 01/16] dt-bindings: phy: lynx-28g: permit lane OF PHY providers

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Vinod,

Thanks for taking a look at this patch set!

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:16:49PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/02270f62-9334-400c-b7b9-7e6a44dbbfc9@solid-run.com/
> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt at kernel.org>
> > Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt at kernel.org>
> > Cc: devicetree at vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> 
> You can keep cc lines after s-o-b line after the '---' separator, that
> way it will be skipped when applying while email client will cc folks.

Yes, but keeping the CC list even when the patch is applied was the
intention, especially for stable.

> My main question was cc stable, for a binding additions, that might not
> be helpful as dts may not have these updates, so why port bindings?

There is a faction of people, whose point as a matter of fact I do
understand, is that if you make an update to the device tree, you
shouldn't be required to also update the kernel for things to continue
to work as before.

The purpose of backporting the binding addition to stable is exactly in
order for kernels such as linux-6.12.y to start supporting modified
device trees, such that one day we could roll out such modifications.
The series doesn't depend on that, but the "DT is ABI" statement has
implications in terms of kernel <-> device tree compatibility, if you
consider the fact that they can be delivered to a board through
different channels. For example, you try to ship a bootloader that
provides its own device tree to the kernel to support generic distros
which don't come with device trees prepackaged, and you have to support
2 LTS kernels with that same device tree.