On 7/24/22 01:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 23/07/2022 18:50, Zhou Yanjie wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> On 2022/7/23 上午1:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 22/07/2022 18:48, 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) wrote: >>>> Add the SFC bindings for the X1000 SoC, the X1600 SoC, the X1830 SoC, >>>> and the X2000 SoC from Ingenic. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: 周琰杰 (Zhou Yanjie) <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 00000000..b7c4cf4 >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>> +--- >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/spi/ingenic,sfc.yaml# >>> File name should be rather based on first compatible, so >>> ingenic,x1000-sfc.yaml >> >> >> No offense, does it really need to be named that way? >> I can't seem to find documentation with instructions on this :( >> >> The use of "ingenic,sfc.yaml" indicates that this is the documentation >> for the SFC module for all Ingenic SoCs, without misleading people into >> thinking it's only for a specific model of SoC. And there seem to be many >> other yaml documents that use similar names (eg. fsl,spi-fsl-qspi.yaml, >> spi-rockchip.yaml, spi-nxp-fspi.yaml, ingenic,spi.yaml, spi-sifive.yaml, >> omap-spi.yaml), maybe these yaml files that are not named with first >> compatible are also for the same consideration. :) > > We have many bad examples, many poor patterns and they are never an > argument to add one more bad pattern. Zhou already mentioned he was unable find the naming guidelines of these .yaml files. Apparently you think it's unacceptable for new contributors of a certain subsystem to use existing code as examples, and/or they're responsible for figuring out what's a good example and what's a bad one in the existing codebase. > > It might never grow to new devices (because they might be different), so > that is not really an argument. It is an argument. A very valid one. "they *might* be different". You may want to get your hands on real hardware and try another word. Or at least read the datasheets instead of believing your imagination. I would enjoy duplicating the st,stm32-spi.yaml into st,stm32{f,h}{0..7}-spi.yaml if I'm bored at a Sunday afternoon. > > All bindings are to follow this rule, so I don't understand why you > think it is an exception for you? Zhou didn't ask you to make an exception. They have a valid point and they're asking why. You may want to avoid further incidents of this kind by stop being bossy and actually writing a guideline of naming these .yaml files and publish it somewhere online. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Best regards, Mike Yang
