On 23/08/2022 11:32, Serge Semin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:17:23AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 22/08/2022 22:07, Serge Semin wrote: >>> The Zynq A05 DDRC controller has nothing in common with DW uMCTL2 DDRC: >>> the CSRs layout is absolutely different and it doesn't has IRQ unlike DW >>> uMCTL2 DDR controller of all versions (v1.x, v2.x and v3.x). Thus there is >>> no any reason to have these controllers described by the same bindings. >>> Thus let's split them up. >>> >>> While at it rename the original Synopsys uMCTL2 DT-schema file to a more >>> descriptive - snps,dw-umctl2-ddrc.yaml and add a more detailed title and >>> description of the device bindings. >> > >> Filename should be based on compatible, so if renaming then >> snps,ddrc-3.80a.yaml or snps,ddrc.yaml... which leads to original >> filename anyway. Therefore nack for rename. > > New requirement? I've submitted not a single patch to the DT-bindings > sources and didn't get any comment from Rob about that. This is not a new requirement. It has been since some time and Rob gave such reviews. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/YlhkwvGdcf4ozTzG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ For devices with multiple compatibles that's a bit tricky, but assuming the bindings describe both original design from Synopsys and it's implementations, then something closer to Synopsys makes sense. > In addition > There are DT bindings with names different from what is defined in the > compatible name. Moreover there are tons of bindings with various > compatible names. What name to choose then? Finally the current name > is too generic to use for actual DW uMCTL2 DDRC controller. There are thousands of bugs, inconsistencies, naming differences in kernel. I don't find these as arguments to repeat the practice...so the bindings file name should be based on the compatible. Best regards, Krzysztof
