On 03/10/2022 09:58, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 10/3/22 09:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 03/10/2022 09:15, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> And this is new IP. Not sure who has chosen similar name but this targets >>>>> Xilinx Versal SOCs. Origin one was targeting previous families. >>>> >>>> Do we need a whole new schema doc? >>> >>> It is completely new IP with different logic compare to origin one. >>> >>>> >>>> It is not ideal to define the same property, xlnx,nr-outputs, more than >>>> once. And it's only a new compatible string. >>> >>> I can't see any issue with using dt binding for xlnx,clocking-wizard.yaml >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/xlnx,clocking-wizard.yaml >> >> So we already have out of staging document: >> devicetree/bindings/clock/xlnx,clocking-wizard.yaml > > in 6.1 yes. > >> >> and author wants to add one more: >> devicetree/bindings/clock/xlnx,clk-wizard.yaml > > as I said it is completely different IP which requires complete different driver > but IP designers choose similar name which is out of developer control. > >> >> Shall we expect in two years, a third document like: >> devicetree/bindings/clock/xlnx,clk-wzrd.yaml >> ? > > Developer definitely doesn't know. If new SoC requires for the same purpose > different IP with completely different driver is something out of developer > control. As of today I am not aware about such a requirement and need and > personally I can just hope that if they need to do such a change they will be > able to keep current SW driver compatible with new HW IP. Then please start naming them reasonable, not two (and in future x-times) the same names for entirely different blocks. And by name I mean compatible, filename and device name. >>> also for this IP if that's fine with you. >>> Only xlnx,speed-grade can be defined for previous IP which is easy to mark. >> >> That old binding also explained nr-outputs as "Number of outputs". >> Perfect... :( > > Anyway if description should be improved let's just do it. I just want to get > guidance if we should update current dt binding for similar IP or just create > new one as this one is trying to do. IMHO, new binding is extremely confusing. We already have support for devices named "xlnx,clocking-wizard" and now you add exactly the same (clk=clocking) with almost the same properties, named "xlnx,clk-wizard-1.0". For a different IP? How anyone (even Xilinx' customer) can understand which block is for what if they have exactly the same name and (almost) the same properties, but as you said - these are entirely different IP? Best regards, Krzysztof
