On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 09:06:42AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 24/08/2022 20:27, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > Note what Rob said concerned the generic compatible "fallback" case, > > not the generic compatible string in general. It's ok to have a > > generic device name defined irrespective to the platform vendor. > > Moreover it's applicable in case of the DW uMCTL2 DDRC IP-core since > > first IP-core version is auto-detectable starting from v3.20a and > > second I managed to implement auto-detection solutions for almost > > all the DDR/ECC-specific parameters. So I am more inclined to the > > solution 1) suggested by me in the previous email message: > > - deprecate "snps,ddrc-3.80a" string. > > - add new generic "snps,dw-umctl2-ddrc" compatible string. > > - rename the DT-bindings file. > > Sounds ok. Agreed then. > > > > >> > >> Here the Linux driver also binds to generic synopsys compatible, so I > >> would assume it has a meaning and use case on its own. > > > > Please see my messages above regarding the current Synopsys DW uMCTL2 > > EDAC driver implementation. > > > >> > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >>> * Note I've got it you'd prefer the renaming being performed in a > >>> separate patch. > >> > >> The rename could be in the split patch as here, but then I assume the > >> rename part to be detected by git and be a pure rename. However: > >> 1. The git did not mark it as rename (you might need to use custom > >> arguments to -M/-B/-C), > > > > Of course git hasn't detected it as rename, because aside with renaming > > I've split the bindings up. Splitting these two updates up into two > > patches will give us what you said. So to speak I suggest the next > > updates for v2: > > PATCH X. Detach the Zynq A05 DDRC DT-bindings to a separate schema. > > PATCH X + 1. Rename the Synopsys DW uMCTL2 DDRC bindings file and add a more > > descriptive generic compatible string name. > > > > What do you think? > > Regardless of the split the rename can be and should be detected by Git. > That's why we have these options. If it is not detected, you changed too > much during rename, so it is not a rename anymore. Relatively small > amount of changes would still be detected. Right. I'll make sure the renaming is detected. -Sergey > > > > >> 2. There were also changes in the process (allOf:if:then). > > > > Right. But this is in another patchset. I'll address your notes in there. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
