Resend the reply. > -----Original Message----- > From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:52 PM > To: Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie > <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: kishon@xxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; Shevchenko, Andriy > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>; eswara.kota@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi > Bai <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@xxxxxxxxx>; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: intel: Add Keem Bay eMMC > PHY bindings > > On 01-09-20, 04:58, Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote: > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/intel,keembay-emmc- > > > phy.yaml#" > > > > +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"; > > > > + > > > > +title: Intel Keem Bay eMMC PHY bindings > > > > > > This seems same as > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-emmc-phy.yaml, > why > > > not add a new compatible in lgm binding, or did I miss a difference? > > > > AFAIK, LGM make use of syscon node, whilst KMB does not. > > And LGM and KMB belongs to different SoC family. So, I prefer them to > > be in separate file. > > > > Having said that, with few changes in wordings in title and > > description, I think we can make it generic and can be used across few > products. > > The bindings seems quite similar. We can have two drivers loaded using two > compatible but binding description can be made same Noted. I can make the change i.e. add Keem Bay compatible string in lgm binding document and drop Keem Bay binding document. Rob and Vadivel, is there any objection? If not, I will proceed with v9 in the next one or two days. > > -- > ~Vinod
