On 14/04/2022 19:17, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:34:31AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
On 13/04/2022 18:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 13/04/2022 08:07, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
Change binding name from ralink,rt2880-pinmux to ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.
This is the binding for the Ralink RT2880 pinctrl subdriver.
What I don't see here is why you are doing this. pinmux/pinctrl have the
same meaning, I guess?
What I understand is pinmux is rather a specific term for the muxing of pins
or pin groups. Pinctrl is what we prefer here since the term is more
inclusive of what the subdriver does: controlling pins. Any mediatek
driver/subdriver is called pinctrl so I'm not doing something uncommon.
The correct name is really whatever the h/w block is called, not
whatever we've come up with for some class of devices.
Current pin group and function bindings are for MT7621. Put bindings for
RT2880 instead.
Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
...pinmux.yaml => ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml} | 24 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/{ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml => ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml} (56%)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml
similarity index 56%
rename from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml
rename to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml
index 9de8b0c075e2..c657bbf9fdda 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml
@@ -1,21 +1,23 @@
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
%YAML 1.2
---
-$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinmux.yaml#
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pinctrl/ralink,rt2880-pinctrl.yaml#
$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
-title: Ralink rt2880 pinmux controller
+title: Ralink RT2880 Pin Controller
maintainers:
+ - Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Mention this in commit msg.
Will do.
- Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
description:
- The rt2880 pinmux can only set the muxing of pin groups. Muxing indiviual pins
+ Ralink RT2880 pin controller for RT2880 SoC.
+ The pin controller can only set the muxing of pin groups. Muxing indiviual pins
is not supported. There is no pinconf support.
properties:
compatible:
- const: ralink,rt2880-pinmux
+ const: ralink,rt2880-pinctrl
you need to deprecate old property and add a new one.
Do we really have to? That property name was inaccurate from the start. I
don't see a reason to keep it being referred to on the binding.
It's an ABI. There are exceptions, but you've got to spell out the
reasoning in the commit message.
Oh, I thought by deprecating, I was supposed to keep the old one on the
YAML binding. I'll properly explain the reason in the commit message.
Really, who cares. It's just a unique identifier. Unless you also had a
h/w block called 'pinmux' in addition to a 'pinctrl' block it doesn't
matter. We could use just GUIDs instead.
Understood, thanks Rob!
Arınç
