On 12.09.2022 13:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 12/09/2022 09:45, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 09.09.2022 04:36, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 03:15:44PM +0000, Sergiu.Moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> On 08.09.2022 15:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 06/09/2022 15:55, Sergiu Moga wrote: >>>>>> Add the AT91SAM9260 serial compatibles to the list of SAM9X60 compatibles >>>>>> in order to highlight the incremental characteristics of the SAM9X60 >>>>>> serial IP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.moga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> v1 -> v2: >>>>>> - Nothing, this patch was not here before >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml | 2 ++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml >>>>>> index b25535b7a4d2..4d80006963c7 100644 >>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml >>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/serial/atmel,at91-usart.yaml >>>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ properties: >>>>>> - items: >>>>>> - const: microchip,sam9x60-dbgu >>>>>> - const: microchip,sam9x60-usart >>>>>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-dbgu >>>>>> + - const: atmel,at91sam9260-usart >>>>> >>>>> This is weird. You say in commit msg to "highlight the incremental >>>>> characteristics" but you basically change here existing compatibles. >>>> >>>> >>>> Does "show that they are incremental IP's" sound better then? >>>> >>>> >>>>> This is not enum, but a list. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What do you mean by this? I know it is a list, I specified so in the >>>> commit message. >>> >>> You are saying that compatible must be exactly the 4 strings above in >>> the order listed. You need another entry with another 'items' list. >>> >>> Rob >> >> >> That is what was intended though: a list of the 4 compatibles in that >> exact order. The 4th patch of this series also ensures that all 9x60 >> nodes have that exact list of 4 compatibles. > > The commit msg suggest otherwise - two options, because it is > incremental... But this one is not really incremental - you require this > one, only one, configuration. It's in general fine, but commit msg > should reflect what you are really intend to do here and why you are > doing it. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof My apologies, I still do not understand what is wrong with the commit message. My intention was to ensure that every 9x60 usart compatible is followed by the 9260 compatibles because the 9x60 serial IP is an improvement over the 9260 one. Would you prefer it to be just the first part of the commit message: `Add the AT91SAM9260 serial compatibles to the list of SAM9X60 compatibles`? That way it would really only be what the commit does. Thank you, Sergiu
