Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] dt-bindings: memory-controllers: gpmc-child: add wait-pin polarity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 13:00 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/10/2022 12:13, Niedermayr, BENEDIKT wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-
> > > > child.yaml
> > > > index 6e3995bb1630..477189973334 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/ti,gpmc-child.yaml
> > > > @@ -230,6 +230,13 @@ properties:
> > > >        Wait-pin used by client. Must be less than "gpmc,num-waitpins".
> > > >      $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> > > >  
> > > > +  gpmc,wait-pin-polarity:
> > > 
> > > 'gpmc' is not a vendor. Don't continue this bad pattern, use 'ti'.
> > 
> > You are right. But nevertheless I can't agree with that in this patch series.
> > I don't want to break consistency, since all bindings currently use 'gpmc'. At least this applies
> > to the "ti,gpmc-child.yaml".
> > 
> > I think it makes more sense to create a complete new patch series for that specific change? This change
> > wouldn't fit thematically the current patch series. 
> > 
> 
> So you want to add new property incorrectly named and immediately new
> patch which fixes the name? No, please squash this new patch into this.
> 
No that's not what I meant. Currently all bindings in "ti,gpmc-child.yaml" start with "gpmc," and introducing 
a single binding in this file with "ti," feels like breaking consistency.

The "new" patch series should address **all** bindings in this file and all device trees currently using "gpmc,"
bindings. So finally we have the current patch series introducing the wait pin handling in a consisten way and then another 
patch series which changes all "gpmc," to "ti,". 

If it makes more sense to directly introduce the "ti,wait-pin-polarity" instead of "gpmc,wait-pin-polarity" then I will do. Just
give me a short feedback.
  

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Cheers,
Benedikt





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux