> Unfortunately I have no clue what patch you talk about ("this patch").
> There is no context here, no link except the older LPDDR3.
Sorry, I tried to reply to
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211006224659.21434-4-digetx@xxxxxxxxx/
([PATCH v5 3/9] dt-bindings: memory: lpddr2: Add revision-id
properties) and was hoping that would automatically provide context.
That patch added two one-cell properties `revision-id1` and
`revision-id2` to "jedec,lpddr2". Earlier in
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg413733.html ([PATCH]
dt-bindings: ddr: Add optional manufacturer and revision ID to
LPDDR3), I had added a single two-cell property `revision-id` for the
same purpose to "jedec,lpddr3".
I think it would be better if this was consistent between the two
types of LPDDR memory. Should I just send a patch that replaces the
two revision IDs in "jedec,lpddr2" with a single one according to the
principle of "jedec,lpddr3"? Or is it too late for that now and the
binding already considered stable and unchangeable?
